-DOCSTART- (10037531)

Xylitol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10052279)

Pre-operative NN O I-INT
short-term NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
pre-operative NN O I-INT
short-term NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
prospectively NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
posted NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
such NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
evenly NN O O
matched NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
surface NN O O
area NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
obstructive NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Normal NN O O
individuals NN O O
who NN O O
evenly NN O O
matched NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
normal NN O O
respiratory NN O O
function NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

Pre-operative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
220.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.9 NN O O
and NN O O
324.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
84.3 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
218.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16.4 NN O O
and NN O O
260.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
35.2 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
844.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
147.4 NN O O
and NN O O
1100.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
158.1 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
830.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
117.4 NN O O
and NN O O
1090 NN O O
+/- NN O O
137 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
respectively NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
though NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
35.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22.3 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
, NN O O
18.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.6 NN O O
days NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
short-term NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
functions NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10078672)

Behavioral NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
alfentanil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
used NN O O
mood NN O O
inventories NN O O
and NN O O
psychomotor NN O O
tests NN O O
to NN O O
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
non-drug-abusing NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Alfentanil NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
comparator NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
remifentanil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
alfentanil NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
age- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
weight-adjusted NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
determined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
STANPUMP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
software NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
three NN O O
predicted NN O O
constant NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
for NN O O
40 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
remifentanil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.75 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
ng/ml NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
alfentanil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
32 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
64 NN O I-INT
ng/ml NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mood NN O O
forms NN O O
and NN O O
psychomotor NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
completed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
miosis NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
infusions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
analgesia NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
cold-pressor NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Remifentanil NN O I-INT
had NN O O
prototypic NN O I-OUT
micro-like NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impaired NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
produced NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Alfentanil NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
tested NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
mild NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
data NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
40:1 NN O O
potency NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
20:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
exist NN O O
between NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
and NN O O
alfentanil NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
psychomotor NN O O
test NN O O
administered NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
volunteers NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
impaired NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
they NN O O
reported NN O O
feeling NN O O
no NN O O
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
notion NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
are NN O O
extremely NN O O
short-lived NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
administered NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
questioned NN O O
given NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
that NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
still NN O O
apparent NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10078673)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
solutions NN O O
of NN O O
ropivacaine/fentanyl NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
patient-controlled NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Ropivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
analgesia NN O O
from NN O O
epidural NN O O
ropivacaine NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
ropivacaine-fentanyl NN O I-INT
may NN O O
further NN O O
improve NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
decrease NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
manner NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
solutions NN O O
: NN O O
0.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ropivacaine-4 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ropivacaine-2 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
0.05 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ropivacaine-1 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O O
standardized NN O O
combined NN O O
epidural NN O O
and NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Patient-controlled NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
settings NN O O
and NN O O
adjustments NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
solutions NN O O
were NN O O
standardized NN O O
to NN O O
deliver NN O O
equivalent NN O O
drug NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ambulation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
orthostasis NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient-controlled NN O I-OUT
epidural NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
h. NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
three NN O O
solutions NN O O
produced NN O O
equivalent NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

Motor NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
intense NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
ropivacaine-4 NN O I-INT
microg NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
solution NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
between NN O O
solutions NN O O
and NN O O
mild NN O O
in NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
ropivacaine-4 NN O I-OUT
microg NN O I-OUT
fentanyl NN O I-OUT
solution NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
ropivacaine-2 NN O I-INT
microg NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
group NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fentanyl NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Lesser NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
provide NN O O
comparable NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
less NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
similar NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
ropivacaine NN O O
and NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
solution NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
determinant NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O O
lower NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10089089)

Piperacillin/tazobactam NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tobramycin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
ceftazidime NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tobramycin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
empiric NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
neutropenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
advantages NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
piperacillin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tazobactam NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
neutropenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
single-center NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
247 NN O I-PAR
febrile NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
our NN O O
standard NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
ceftazidime NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
g/day NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
t.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
plus NN O O
tobramycin NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
piperacillin NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
g/day NN O O
plus NN O O
tazobactam NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
g/day NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
g+0.5 NN O O
g NN O O
t.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
plus NN O O
tobramycin NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
b.i.d. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Vancomycin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
added NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O O
fever NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ceftazidime NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
microbiologically NN O O
documented NN O O
resistance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
piperacillin/tazobactam NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
247 NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
populations NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
matched NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
underlying NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
received NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O O
decontamination NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
bacterial NN O O
documentation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
antibacterial NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
apyrexia NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
change NN O O
) NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
containing NN O O
piperacillin/tazobactam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
54.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
including NN O O
ceftazidime NN O I-INT
( NN O O
37.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
major NN O O
infectious NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
infectious NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
delay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
underlying NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
piperacillin/ NN O I-INT
tazobactam NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
2.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ceftazidime NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
( NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
glycopeptide NN O I-OUT
addition NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
piperacillin/tazobactam NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
( NN O O
54.4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
77.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
rules NN O O
adopted NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
piperacillin/tazobactam NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
for NN O O
empirical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
febrile NN O I-PAR
neutropenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
combination NN O O
permitted NN O O
a NN O O
dramatic NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
empiric NN O I-OUT
glycopeptide NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10207709)

Couple-responsible NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therapist-couple NN O O
struggle NN O O
vs. NN O O
cooperation NN O O
is NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
research NN O O
conceptualizes NN O O
and NN O O
investigates NN O O
treatment NN O O
process NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
relates NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
struggle NN O O
versus NN O O
cooperation NN O O
. NN O O

Models NN O O
of NN O O
couple-responsible NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
therapist-responsible NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
in NN O O
couple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

Couple-responsible NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
consists NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
enactments NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
accommodation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
inductive NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therapist-responsible NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
consists NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
therapist-couple NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
therapist NN O I-INT
interpretation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
counterbalanced NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
couples NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
couple-responsible NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
therapist-responsible NN O I-INT
episodes NN O I-INT
during NN O O
one NN O O
therapy NN O O
session NN O O
. NN O O

Couples NN O O
reviewed NN O O
videotapes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
episodes NN O O
and NN O O
completed NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
responsibility NN O O
, NN O O
struggle NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cooperation NN O O
. NN O O

Perceived NN O I-OUT
responsibility NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
and NN O O
struggle NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
during NN O O
couple-responsible NN O I-INT
episodes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
cooperation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

Presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
contrast NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
couples NN O O
reported NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
therapist NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
after NN O O
already NN O O
experiencing NN O O
its NN O O
opposite NN O O
, NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
main NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
responsibility NN O O
and NN O O
struggle NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mediated NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
struggle NN O O
and NN O O
cooperation NN O O
. NN O O

Generally NN O O
speaking NN O O
, NN O O
responsibility NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
even NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
couple-responsible NN O I-INT
episodes NN O I-INT
and NN O O
even NN O O
lower NN O O
during NN O O
therapist-responsible NN O I-INT
episodes NN O I-INT
when NN O O
contrast NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
struggle NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
even NN O O
lower NN O O
during NN O O
couple-responsible NN O I-INT
episodes NN O I-INT
and NN O O
even NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
therapist-responsible NN O I-INT
episodes NN O I-INT
when NN O O
contrast NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
both NN O O
couple-responsible NN O O
and NN O O
therapist-responsible NN O O
episodes NN O O
, NN O O
cooperation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
negatively NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
shift NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
prior NN O O
, NN O O
opposite NN O O
therapist NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
responsibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
struggle NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cooperation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
by NN O O
therapist NN O O
process NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10224577)

Thrombolysis NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
heparin NN O O
for NN O O
non-obstructive NN O I-PAR
mitral NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIM NN O O
OF NN O O
THE NN O O
STUDY NN O O
Non-obstructive NN O I-PAR
prosthetic NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PVT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
unique NN O O
subset NN O O
that NN O O
features NN O O
clinical NN O O
presentation NN O O
without NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
. NN O O

Thrombolysis NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
accepted NN O O
for NN O O
obstructive NN O O
PVT NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
of NN O O
non-obstructive NN O O
PVT NN O O
are NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
and NN O O
heparin NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Between NN O O
1993 NN O O
and NN O O
1998 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
multiplane NN O I-PAR
transesophageal NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
TEE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
non-obstructive NN O I-PAR
PVT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TEE NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
peripheral NN O O
embolism NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
stroke NN O O
or NN O O
transient NN O O
ischemic NN O O
attack NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
, NN O O
stroke NN O O
and NN O O
fever NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
fever NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
routine NN O O
postoperative NN O O
examination NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
reasons NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
streptokinase-mediated NN O I-INT
fibrinolysis NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
using NN O O
TEE NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
prosthesis NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
since NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
status NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
inadequate NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
TEE NN O O
, NN O O
valve NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
normal NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
thrombi NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mobile NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
5-13 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
diameter NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
thrombi NN O O
but NN O O
three NN O O
were NN O O
mobile NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
3-18 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
diameter NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
within NN O O
6-72 NN O O
h. NN O O
In NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
3-32 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
seven NN O O
days NN O O
' NN O O
of NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
heparin NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
successful NN O O
coumarin NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
five NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
thrombus NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
( NN O O
three NN O O
became NN O O
obstructive NN O O
in NN O O
7-35 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
without NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
12-60 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O O
fifth NN O O
patient NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
nine NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
subsequently NN O O
operated NN O O
on NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Non-obstructive NN O O
PVT NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
in NN O O
one-third NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Thrombolysis NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
efficient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
first-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
contraindication NN O O
. NN O O

Heparin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
about NN O O
one-half NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
sessile NN O O
or NN O O
small NN O O
thrombi NN O O
and NN O O
inadequate NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
thrombi NN O O
became NN O O
obstructive NN O O
or NN O O
caused NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
heparin NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
adequate NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10337433)

Comparative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
olopatadine NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
provocative NN O O
antigen NN O O
challenge NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
olopatadine NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Olopatadine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
dual NN O O
acting NN O O
H1 NN O O
histamine NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
mast NN O O
cell NN O O
stabilizer NN O O
, NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ketorolac NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
non-steroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
approved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O O
States NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
ocular NN O O
itching NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
seasonal NN O O
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
provocative NN O O
antigen NN O O
challenge NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
allergen NN O O
and NN O O
concentration NN O O
that NN O O
consistently NN O O
elicited NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
allergic NN O O
reaction NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
olopatadine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
one NN O O
eye NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
contralateral NN O O
eye NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
one NN O O
eye NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
contralateral NN O O
eye NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-seven NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
instillation NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
challenged NN O O
with NN O O
allergen NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
following NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
graded NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ciliary NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
episcleral NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
beds NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Approximately NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
alternate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
one NN O O
eye NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
contralateral NN O O
eye NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
again NN O O
challenged NN O O
with NN O O
allergen NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Olopatadine NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
reduced NN O O
both NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
vessel NN O O
beds NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
all NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
tested NN O O
following NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

Ketorolac NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
itching NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Olopatadine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
more NN O O
comfortable NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
as NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
subjects NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
drug NN O O
instillation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
olopatadine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
and NN O O
treating NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
comfortable NN O O
than NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10348763)

Amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
toxicities NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
dextrose NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
toxicity NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AmB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
per NN O O
kg NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
infused NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
dextrose NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
infused NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
82 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
full NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
AmB NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
117 NN O I-PAR
courses NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
urea NN O O
and NN O O
creatinine NN O O
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
potassium NN O O
requirement NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
infused NN O O
in NN O O
dextrose NN O I-INT
and NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
infused NN O O
in NN O O
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
there NN O O
being NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
courses NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
acute NN O O
toxicity NN O O
( NN O O
fever NN O O
, NN O O
rigors NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
toxicity NN O O
( NN O O
nephrotoxicity NN O O
) NN O O
also NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
infused NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
dextrose NN O I-INT
( NN O O
78 NN O O
courses NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
infused NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
( NN O O
84 NN O O
courses NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AmB NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
dextrose NN O I-INT
and NN O O
15 NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AmB NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AmB NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dextrose NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.039 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.016 NN O O
liter NN O O
. NN O O

h-1 NN O O
. NN O O

kg-1 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
CL NN O O
of NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.062 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

024 NN O O
liter NN O O
. NN O O

h-1 NN O O
. NN O O

kg-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
steady-state NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
AmB NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
dextrose NN O O
( NN O O
0.83 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.33 NN O O
liter NN O O
. NN O O

kg-1 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.47 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.77 NN O O
liter NN O O
. NN O O

kg-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
AmB NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
emulsion NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
apparently NN O O
cleared NN O O
faster NN O O
and NN O O
distributes NN O O
more NN O O
widely NN O O
than NN O O
AmB NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dextrose NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reveal NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
AmB NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
dextrose NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10352397)

Low-dose NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
restriction NN O I-INT
accelerates NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exerts NN O I-OUT
anabolic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improves NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
secretory NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
GH NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
induce NN O O
an NN O O
accelerated NN O I-OUT
lipolysis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Impaired NN O O
secretion NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
in NN O O
obesity NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
consequent NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lipolytic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Dietary NN O O
restriction NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
basic NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
obesity NN O O
is NN O O
complicated NN O O
by NN O O
poor NN O O
compliance NN O O
, NN O O
protein NN O O
catabolism NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
slow NN O O
rates NN O O
or NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

GH NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
anabolic NN O O
effect NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
insulin-like NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IGF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-I NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O O
restriction NN O O
on NN O O
lipolytic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anabolic NN O I-OUT
actions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
consequent NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
obesity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
22-46 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
fed NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
of NN O O
25 NN O O
kcal/kg NN O O
ideal NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
IBW NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
1.2 NN O O
g NN O O
protein/kg NN O O
IBW NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
0.18 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
IBW/week NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
vehicle NN O O
injection NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
1.6-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fraction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
lost NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
visceral NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
35.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
28.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-2.62 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.51 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-4.52 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.51 NN O O
g/day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.13 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.04 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.81 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.06 NN O O
g/day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GH NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
a NN O O
1.6-fold NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
despite NN O O
caloric NN O O
restriction NN O O
. NN O O

GH NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
L-dopa NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
blunted NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
induce NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
OGTT NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
OGTT NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
FFA NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
during NN O O
OGTT NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
visceral NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
given NN O O
a NN O O
hypocaloric NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
GH NN O O
accelerates NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exerts NN O I-OUT
anabolic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improves NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
with NN O O
caloric NN O O
restriction NN O O
for NN O O
obesity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10355394)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Duraflo NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
heparin-coated NN O I-INT
circuits NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-PAR
reoperations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Heparin-coated NN O I-INT
circuits NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
responses NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
on NN O O
low-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
received NN O O
full-dose NN O O
systemic NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
clearly NN O O
improved NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
heparin-coated NN O I-INT
circuits NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
reoperations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
reoperation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
operations NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
heparin-coated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Duraflo NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
uncoated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
circuit NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
entire NN O O
populations NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
CABG NN O O
reoperation NN O O
only NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
reoperation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
reoperation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Preoperative NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
except NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
5.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.035 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
valve NN O I-OUT
reoperations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
lower NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
CABG NN O O
reoperations NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
separately NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
less NN O O
reoperation NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
4.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.058 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
heparin-coated NN O O
circuits NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
imparted NN O O
protection NN O O
from NN O O
reoperations NN O O
for NN O O
bleeding NN O O
and NN O O
major NN O O
bleeding NN O O
episodes NN O O
. NN O O

Material-independent NN O O
blood NN O O
activation NN O O
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
blood-air NN O O
interface NN O O
and NN O O
cardiotomy NN O O
suction NN O O
) NN O O
blunted NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
heparin-coated NN O O
surface NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10379020)

Vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
extremely-low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
National NN O O
Institute NN O O
of NN O O
Child NN O O
Health NN O O
and NN O O
Human NN O O
Development NN O O
Neonatal NN O O
Research NN O O
Network NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
lung NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
sepsis NN O O
in NN O O
extremely-low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
5000 NN O O
IU NN O O
administered NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
doses NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
past NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
regimen NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
807 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
need NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
770 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
769 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
respective NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
26.8 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
26.7 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
By NN O O
36 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
postmenstrual NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
59 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
405 NN O O
infants NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
402 NN O O
infants NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
- NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
36 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
postmenstrual NN O O
age NN O O
- NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
62 NN O O
percent NN O O
; NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
0.89 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.80 NN O O
to NN O O
0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
additional NN O O
infant NN O O
survived NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
every NN O O
14 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
infants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
supplements NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infants NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
below NN O O
20 NN O O
microg NN O O
per NN O O
deciliter NN O O
( NN O O
0.70 NN O O
micromol NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
54 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Intramuscular NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
5000 NN O O
IU NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
reduced NN O O
biochemical NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
deficiency NN O O
and NN O O
slightly NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
extremely-low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10382134)

Sleep NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
regarded NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
clinical NN O O
feature NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
concept NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
primarily NN O O
on NN O O
informal NN O O
observations NN O O
or NN O O
studies NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
questionnaires NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
data NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
questionnaires NN O I-INT
to NN O O
that NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
actigraphy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Among NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
actigraphy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
While NN O O
the NN O O
employment NN O O
of NN O O
questionnaires NN O I-INT
disclosed NN O O
that NN O O
autistic NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O I-OUT
morning NN O I-OUT
awakening NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
night NN O I-OUT
arousals NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
actigraphic NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O I-OUT
morning NN O I-OUT
arousal NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.045 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Parental NN O O
oversensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
explain NN O O
this NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10390407)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
formoterol NN O O
and NN O O
salmeterol NN O O
in NN O O
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Studies NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
airway NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
have NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
salmeterol NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
agonist NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
beta2-receptor NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
formoterol NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
salmeterol NN O O
and NN O O
formoterol NN O O
also NN O O
are NN O O
applicable NN O O
to NN O O
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
protective NN O O
effects NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
cumulative NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
250 NN O O
, NN O O
500 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
methacholine-induced NN O O
bronchoconstriction NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
regularly NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
avoid NN O I-INT
variability NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
beta2-adrenoceptor NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
S-potassium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
Q-T NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Q-Tc NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
effects NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Formoterol NN O I-INT
dose-dependently NN O O
protected NN O O
against NN O O
methacholine NN O I-INT
responsiveness NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4.6 NN O I-INT
doubling NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Salmeterol NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
flatter NN O O
dose-response NN O O
curve NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
weaker NN O O
maximal NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
doubling NN O O
doses NN O O
after NN O O
250 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Formoterol NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
tremor NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
S-potassium NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
salmeterol NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
salmeterol NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
agonist NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
beta2-receptor NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
formoterol NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
airways NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
document NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
example NN O O
in NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10408075)

[ NN O O
Validity NN O O
of NN O O
cardiotocography NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
umbilical NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
cardiotocography NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
cord NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
low-risk NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4196 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
recognized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
34.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
paired NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
parity NN O O
, NN O O
gestational NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
maternal NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
mode NN O O
of NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

25 NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
50 NN O O
tracings NN O O
were NN O O
presented NN O O
twice NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
obstetricians NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
parameters NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
fetal NN O O
monitoring NN O O
the NN O O
reliability NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O O
( NN O O
ppv NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
( NN O O
npv NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Inter- NN O O
and NN O O
intra-observer NN O O
variability NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Reliability NN O I-OUT
52 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
ppv NN O I-OUT
52 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
npv NN O I-OUT
52 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
46 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
58 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Interobserver NN O O
variability NN O O
: NN O O
All NN O O
4 NN O O
obstetricians NN O O
agreed NN O O
in NN O O
47 NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
evaluations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
agreement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cord NN O O
complication NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intraobserver NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Cardiotocography NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
possibilities NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
exploited NN O O
yet NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fetal NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10439497)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolaemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
life NN O I-INT
style NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
elucidate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
lipids NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
captopril NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
beta-receptor NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cholesterol NN O I-INT
reducing NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
beta-hydroxy-methylglutaryl-coenzyme NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
encouraged NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
improve NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
study NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
phases NN O O
. NN O O

I NN O O
: NN O O
Lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
II NN O O
: NN O O
Continued NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
captopril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
III NN O O
: NN O O
Continued NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
phase NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
Fifty-four NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
surgeries NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Norway NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
210 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
antihypertensive NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sitting NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
6.5 NN O I-PAR
mmol/l NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7.0 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
60-67 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
9.0 NN O I-PAR
mmol/l NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
concurrent NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
concurrent NN O O
medication NN O O
with NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
supplementary NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
diuretics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Pravastatin NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolaemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10442506)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Initially NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
then NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
or NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
taken NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
at NN O O
7 NN O O
am NN O O
. NN O O

Dosage NN O O
was NN O O
doubled NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
when NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
> NN O O
90 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
sitting NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
active NN O O
phases NN O O
a NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
adenosine NN O O
diphosphate NN O O
, NN O O
collagen NN O O
and NN O O
adrenaline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
platelet NN O O
malondialdehyde NN O O
production NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
in NN O O
basal NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O O
MDA-basal NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
arachidonic NN O O
acid NN O O
pathway NN O O
by NN O O
adding NN O O
ethylmaleimide NN O O
( NN O O
MDA-activated NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Enalapril NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
58.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
31.7 NN O O
mg/daily NN O O
. NN O O

Amlodipine NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
7.1 NN O O
mg/daily NN O O
. NN O O

Platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
15.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
ADP NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
microM NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
17.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
collagen NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
19.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
adrenaline NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
microM NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Meanwhile NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
slightly NN O O
increased NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
45.33 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
MDA-basal NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
3.76 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
MDA-activated NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
MDA-basal NN O O
: NN O O
MDA-activated NN O O
in NN O O
36.79 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Meanwhile NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
MDA-basal NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
2.89 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
MDA-activated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
3.58 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
MDA-basal NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
MDA-activated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
10.34 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
its NN O O
action NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
arachidonic NN O O
acid NN O O
metabolic NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10443725)

Continued NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
pressure-flow NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
finasteride NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Finasteride NN O O
Urodynamics NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
finasteride NN O O
on NN O O
pressure-flow NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
urodynamically NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
outflow NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BOO NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-one NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
enlargement NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LUTS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
pressure-flow NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
PFS NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
clinical NN O O
centers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PFS NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
standardized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
tracings NN O O
were NN O O
read NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
reader NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
obstructed NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-OUT
Abrams-Griffiths NN O I-OUT
nomogram NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
finasteride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
81 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
continuing NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
extension NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
finasteride NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
12-month NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
finasteride NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
continuing NN O O
effects NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
54 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
finasteride NN O O
is NN O O
provided NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Detrusor NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
maximum NN O O
flow NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
PdetQmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
continued NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
decreases NN O O
of NN O O
5.3 NN O O
and NN O O
11.7 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
at NN O O
months NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
obstructed NN O O
by NN O O
Abrams-Griffiths NN O I-OUT
classification NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
76.2 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
59.6 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
24 NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
yielded NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Finasteride NN O O
improves NN O O
urodynamic NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
obstruction NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BPE NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
LUTS NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
continued NN O O
improvement NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10470636)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intraabdominal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
transurethral NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intraabdominal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
According NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
randomization NN O O
schedule NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
Spinal NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
tetracaine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
intrathecally NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
General NN O I-INT
Anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
, NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

1.0 NN O O
to NN O O
2.0 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
mask NN O O
airway NN O O
was NN O O
inserted NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
ventilation NN O O
, NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
by NN O O
administering NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O O
end-tidal NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N2O NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intraabdominal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
demographically NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
S NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
bladder NN O O
compliance NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
intraabdominal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
preanesthetic NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
GA NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
intraabdominal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
decreased NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
preanesthetic NN O O
recordings NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t-test NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intraabdominal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
While NN O O
both NN O O
techniques NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10506815)

One-year NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
investigation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
KeraVision NN O I-INT
Intacs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Limitations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
correction NN O O
for NN O O
myopia NN O I-PAR
include NN O O
inaccuracy NN O O
, NN O O
instability NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
optical NN O O
zone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
reversibility NN O O
. NN O O

KeraVision NN O I-INT
Intacs NN O I-INT
offer NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
that NN O O
addresses NN O O
these NN O O
shortcomings NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
present NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
95 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
Food NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Drug NN O I-PAR
Administration NN O I-PAR
Phase NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
99 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
20/40 NN O I-PAR
uncorrected NN O I-PAR
vision NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
better NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ninety-two NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
1.00 NN O O
D NN O O
of NN O O
intended NN O O
correction NN O O
and NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
68 NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
0.50 NN O O
D NN O O
of NN O O
intended NN O O
correction NN O O
. NN O O

Stability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
having NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1.00 NN O O
D NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
their NN O O
previous NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
substudy NN O O
, NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
58 NN O O
of NN O O
65 NN O O
) NN O O
varied NN O O
within NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.50 NN O O
D NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Corneal NN O I-OUT
curvature NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
as NN O O
predicted NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prolate NN O O
aspheric NN O O
shape NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
optical NN O O
zone NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O O
were NN O O
managed NN O O
with NN O O
additional NN O O
medication NN O O
or NN O O
surgical NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
outcome NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
KeraVision NN O O
Intacs NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
predictable NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stable NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
additive NN O O
technique NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
offer NN O O
reversibility NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10550137)

Granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
before NN O O
doxorubicin NN O O
and NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
priming NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
stem-cell NN O O
activity NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O O
[ NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
Sargramostim NN O O
; NN O O
Immunex NN O O
Corporation NN O O
, NN O O
Seattle NN O O
, NN O O
WA NN O O
) NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
or NN O O
priming NN O O
protects NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
stem NN O O
cells NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Serial NN O O
blood NN O O
counts NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
By NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
balanced NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
priming NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
before NN O O
priming NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
priming NN O O
the NN O O
times NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
nadir NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
days NN O O
v NN O O
14.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
nadir NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
10.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.9 NN O O
days NN O O
v NN O O
11.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.2 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
shorter NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
shift NN O O
of NN O O
cytotoxicity NN O O
to NN O O
later NN O O
progenitors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
nadir NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
priming NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
490 NN O O
+/- NN O O
310/microL NN O O
v NN O O
550 NN O O
+/- NN O O
350/microL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
16 NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
1030 NN O O
+/- NN O O
580/microL NN O O
v NN O O
690 NN O O
+/- NN O O
370/microL NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.004 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
500/microL NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
priming NN O O
than NN O O
before NN O O
( NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
or NN O O
17 NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
12 NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
or NN O O
35.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
nadir NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
166,000 NN O O
+/- NN O O
51,000/microL NN O O
after NN O O
priming NN O O
v NN O O
151,000 NN O O
+/- NN O O
45,000/microL NN O O
before NN O O
priming NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.007 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
platelet NN O O
count NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
150,000/microL NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
days NN O O
v NN O O
2.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.9 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.0025 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
priming NN O O
. NN O O

Episodes NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
priming NN O O
from NN O O
days NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
before NN O O
doxorubicin NN O O
and NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O O
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
nadir NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
day NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
mean NN O O
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
500/microL NN O O
) NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
observations NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
priming NN O O
protects NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
progenitors NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10557909)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
guided NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
on NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10560780)

Barriers NN O O
to NN O O
hypertension NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Barriers NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HBP NN O O
) NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
for NN O O
> NN O O
30 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
reports NN O O
on NN O O
barriers NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HBP NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
age/sex/race NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
severe NN O O
and NN O O
complicated NN O O
HBP NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
awareness NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
factors NN O O
potentially NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
309 NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
majority NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
encountered NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
variety NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
barriers NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
economic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lifestyle NN O I-PAR
obstacles NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
adequate NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-OUT
current NN O I-OUT
HBP NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alcoholism NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
illicit NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-OUT
isolation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unemployment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
insurance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Having NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
insurance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
7.20 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.00 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
screen NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
.56 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
being NN O O
in NN O O
HBP NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O I-OUT
alcoholism NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
significant NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
HBP NN O O
medication-taking NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

Men NN O I-PAR
currently NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-OUT
illicit NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
2.64 NN O O
times NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
controlled NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
counterparts NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
illicit NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
currently NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-OUT
HBP NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
63 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
have NN O O
controlled NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
HBP NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comprehensive NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
and NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
issues NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
other NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
HBP NN O O
care NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
salient NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10563544)

Intra-luminal NN O O
nicotine NN O O
reduces NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
tone NN O O
and NN O O
contractile NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
large NN O O
bowel NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Nicotine NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
ulcerative NN O I-PAR
colitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
UC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
although NN O O
its NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
solution NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O O
on NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
resting NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
contractile NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
colon NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
UC NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
non-smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
separate NN O I-INT
occasions NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
sequence NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
water-perfused NN O I-INT
manometry NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
openings NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
cm NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
tip NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
placed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
rigid NN O I-INT
sigmoidoscopy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
recto-sigmoid NN O I-INT
region NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Baseline NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
pH NN O I-INT
4.5 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Observations NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
15-20 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
showed NN O O
both NN O O
high- NN O O
and NN O O
low-frequency NN O O
components NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
UC NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
low-frequency NN O O
activity NN O O
was NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
amplitude NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
nicotine NN O O
reduced NN O O
both NN O O
tone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
reduction NN O O
or NN O O
abolition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O O
contractions NN O O
in NN O O
UC NN O O
. NN O O

Tone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
nicotine NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.000015 NN O O
, NN O O
sign NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
from NN O O
normals NN O O
and NN O O
UC NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
tone NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
saline NN O O
solution NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Intra-luminal NN O O
nicotine NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
both NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
tone NN O O
and NN O O
contractile NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
recto-sigmoid NN O O
colon NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
UC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10568568)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
nitric-oxide-generating NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
on NN O O
microcirculatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
skin NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
Raynaud NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Raynaud NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
abnormal NN O O
digital NN O O
vasoconstriction NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
impaired NN O O
synthesis NN O O
of NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
impaired NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
, NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
microcirculation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nitric-oxide-generating NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
topically NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
finger NN O O
and NN O O
forearm NN O O
of NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
Raynaud NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
microcirculatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
topical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nitric-oxidegenerating NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
Raynaud NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O I-INT
prepared NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
nitric-oxide-generating NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
mixing NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
KY NN O I-INT
jelly NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
nitrite NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
weight/volume NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
KY NN O I-INT
jelly NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
weight/volume NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

About NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
separately NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
forearm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
cm2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sterile NN O I-INT
cotton NN O I-INT
bud NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
similar NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
done NN O I-INT
simultaneously NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
KY NN O I-INT
jelly NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
repeated NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
finger NN O O
pulps NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
microcirculatory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flux NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
bilaterally NN O O
by NN O O
infrared NN O O
photoplethysmography NN O O
and NN O O
laser NN O O
doppler NN O O
fluxmetry NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
forearm NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
gel NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
Raynaud NN O O
's NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
microcirculatory NN O O
volume NN O O
from NN O O
mean NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
98 NN O O
[ NN O O
SE NN O O
14 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
1024 NN O O
[ NN O O
130 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
microcirculatory NN O O
flux NN O O
from NN O O
5060 NN O O
[ NN O O
462 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
74,800 NN O O
[ NN O O
3940 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
volume NN O O
from NN O O
85 NN O O
[ NN O O
19 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
1020 NN O O
[ NN O O
60 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
flux NN O O
from NN O O
4420 NN O O
[ NN O O
435 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
84,500 NN O O
[ NN O O
7000 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
fingers NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
increases NN O O
with NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
gel NN O O
( NN O O
volume NN O O
from NN O O
1100 NN O O
[ NN O O
194 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
3280 NN O O
[ NN O O
672 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
2380 NN O O
[ NN O O
441 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
6160 NN O O
[ NN O O
1160 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
flux NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
33,400 NN O O
[ NN O O
4200 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
108,000 NN O O
[ NN O O
13,600 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
52,000 NN O O
[ NN O O
8950 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
185,000 NN O O
[ NN O O
19,500 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Increases NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
gel NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
In NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
Raynaud NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
topical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nitric-oxide-generating NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
can NN O O
stimulate NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
microcirculatory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flux NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10592853)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
barrier NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Ortho NN O I-INT
All-Flex NN O I-INT
diaphragm NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
FemCap NN O O
Investigators NN O O
' NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
silicone NN O O
rubber NN O O
barrier NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
shaped NN O O
like NN O O
a NN O O
sailor NN O O
's NN O O
hat NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
dome NN O O
that NN O O
covers NN O O
the NN O O
cervix NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
rim NN O O
that NN O O
fits NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
fornices NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
brim NN O O
that NN O O
conforms NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
vaginal NN O O
walls NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
cervix NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
fewer NN O O
dislodgments NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
pressure NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
urethra NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
cervical NN O O
cap NN O O
and NN O O
diaphragm NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
require NN O O
less NN O O
clinician NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
fitting NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
II/III NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
841 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
subset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
site NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
colposcopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Ortho NN O I-INT
All-Flex NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
diaphragm NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
nonoxynol-9 NN O I-INT
spermicide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objectives NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
devices NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
acceptability NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
users NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
worse NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diaphragm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
meaning NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
6 NN O O
percentage NN O O
points NN O O
higher NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
6-month NN O I-OUT
Kaplan-Meier NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
unadjusted NN O O
typical NN O O
use NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
probabilities NN O O
were NN O O
13.5 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
users NN O O
and NN O O
7.9 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
diaphragm NN O I-INT
users NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
adjusted NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
users NN O O
was NN O O
1.96 NN O O
times NN O O
that NN O O
among NN O O
diaphragm NN O I-INT
users NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
upper NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
3.01 NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
equivalence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
noninferiority NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
diaphragm NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
defined NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
would NN O O
mean NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
users NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
1.73 NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
diaphragm NN O I-INT
users NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
upper NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
limit NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
even NN O O
the NN O O
point NN O O
estimate NN O O
) NN O O
exceeded NN O O
1.73 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
FemCap NN O I-OUT
users NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
among NN O O
diaphragm NN O I-INT
users NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
the NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
equivalence NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
was NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
More NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
problems NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
FemCap NN O I-INT
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
insertion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dislodgement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
especially NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
their NN O O
general NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
positive NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
devices NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
6-point NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O O
6-month NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
probabilities NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
devices NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
ruled NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
design NN O O
modifications NN O O
can NN O O
simplify NN O O
insertion NN O O
and NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10606880)

Partial NN O O
depletion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
pathway NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
unfractionated NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparins NN O O
. NN O O

Tissue NN O O
factor NN O O
pathway NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
TFPI NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
released NN O O
to NN O O
circulating NN O O
blood NN O O
after NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
and NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
( NN O O
s.c. NN O O
) NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
heparins NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
thus NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
antithrombotic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
heparins NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
recently NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
total NN O O
TFPI NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
TFPI NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
heparin NN O I-OUT
releasable NN O I-OUT
TFPI NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
partially NN O O
depleted NN O O
during NN O O
repeated NN O O
and NN O O
continuous NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

infusion NN O O
of NN O O
unfractionated NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
UFH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
during NN O O
s.c. NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O O
( NN O O
LMWH NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
mode NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
mode NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
s.c. NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
s.c. NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
LMWHs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
d NN O O
with NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
, NN O O
250 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
dalteparin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
U/kg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
also NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
, NN O O
300 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
TFPI NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
TFPI NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
activated NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
thromboplastin NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
APTT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anti-factor NN O I-OUT
Xa NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-factor NN O I-OUT
IIa NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
h. NN O O
On NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
TFPI NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
level NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
injection NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
pre-injection NN O O
level NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
TFPI NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Minimal NN O I-OUT
depletion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TFPI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
LMWHs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
LMWHs NN O I-INT
and NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
and NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
antithrombotic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
LMWHs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10618526)

Early NN O O
immunisation NN O O
with NN O O
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
five-year NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
Hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
using NN O O
an NN O O
accelerated NN O O
schedule NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
schedule NN O O
by NN O O
studying NN O O
the NN O O
immunologic NN O O
memory NN O O
induced NN O O
in NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HBs-Ag NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
seroconversion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
schedule NN O O
presented NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
HBs-Ag NN O I-PAR
concentrations NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
mIU/ml NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
accelerated NN O I-PAR
schedule NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
five NN O O
years NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
anti-HBsAg NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
below NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
mUI/ml NN O I-OUT
received NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
booster NN O O
dose NN O O
which NN O O
stimulated NN O O
the NN O O
antibody NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
exceed NN O I-OUT
100 NN O I-OUT
mIU/ml NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Recombinant NN O I-INT
HBV NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
better NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
immunologic NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
earlier NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10619912)

Gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
c-erbB-2/neu NN O I-OUT
oncoprotein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
epidermal NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cathepsin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein-72 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
different NN O O
histological NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
main NN O O
histological NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
types NN O O
: NN O O
diffuse NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neu/c-erbB-2 NN O I-OUT
oncoprotein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
epidermal NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EGFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cathepsin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
catD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor-associated NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein-72 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TAG-72 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
gastric NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
histological NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
analyzed NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
from NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-INT
gastric NN O I-INT
mucosa NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neu NN O I-OUT
oncoprotein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CatD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TAG-72 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
quantified NN O O
with NN O O
immunoradiometric NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IRMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
methods NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
EGFR NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
studied NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
radioimmunoassay NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RIA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Neu NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
EGFR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
catD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TAG-72 NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tumoral NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.00001 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
diffuse NN O O
adenocarcinomas NN O O
, NN O O
catD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
TAG-72 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
neu NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.57 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O O
type NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
EGFR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neu NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
histological NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
higher NN O O
PR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
catD NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diffuse NN O O
adenocarcinomas NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
overexpression NN O O
of NN O O
TAG-72 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
existence NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
carcinogenesis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10632537)

Focal NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
transcatheter NN O O
arterial NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
styrene NN O I-INT
maleic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
neocarzinostatin NN O O
for NN O O
hepatocellular NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
focal NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oily NN O I-INT
carcinostatic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
by NN O O
transcatheter NN O O
arterial NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
TAI NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
styrene NN O I-INT
maleic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
neocarzinostatin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Lipiodol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Lipiodol NN O I-INT
via NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
feeding NN O O
arteries NN O O
as NN O O
peripherally NN O O
as NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
grade NN O O
of NN O O
Lipiodol NN O O
accumulation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
regression NN O O
rate NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
TAI NN O O
by NN O O
computerized NN O O
tomography NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
TAI NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
subjective NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shaking NN O I-OUT
chills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aspartate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
aminotransferases NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Lipiodol NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
12/19 NN O O
; NN O O
63.2 NN O O
% NN O O
showing NN O O
grade NN O O
IV NN O O
Lipiodol NN O O
accumulation NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
3/18 NN O O
; NN O O
16.7 NN O O
% NN O O
showing NN O O
grade NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
8/17 NN O O
; NN O O
47.1 NN O O
% NN O O
showing NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
tumor NN O O
regression NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
1/13 NN O O
; NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
showing NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
tumor NN O O
regression NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
elevations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aminotransferases NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cholinesterase NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
shaking NN O I-OUT
chills NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
factors NN O O
had NN O O
little NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
styrene NN O I-INT
maleic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
neocarzinostatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Lipiodol NN O O
exerts NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
favorable NN O I-OUT
focal NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
does NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Lipiodol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10678548)

Safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
benazepril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
European NN O O
Group NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Investigation NN O O
of NN O O
Valsartan NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Chronic NN O O
Renal NN O O
Disease NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Several NN O O
experimental NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
renin NN O O
system NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
pivotal NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
progressing NN O O
renal NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
receptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
could NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
blockade NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
agent NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
enhanced NN O O
suppression NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
exhibiting NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
decline NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
pilot NN O O
multinational NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
active-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
creatinine NN O I-PAR
clearance NN O I-PAR
20-45 NN O I-PAR
ml/min NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
proteinuria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
benazepril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
benazepril NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
3 NN O O
received NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
benazepril NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
lasted NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
benazepril NN O O
was NN O O
added NN O O
on NN O O
top NN O O
of NN O O
valsartan NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
receptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
11 NN O O
micromol/l NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
; NN O O
9 NN O O
micromol/l NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.030 NN O O
; NN O O
15 NN O O
micromol/l NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.0006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
0.28 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.28 NN O O
; NN O O
0.48 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.0008 NN O O
; NN O O
0.36 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
seated NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SDBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
seated NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SSBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
-2.0 NN O O
and NN O O
-11.5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
-7.6 NN O O
and NN O O
-15.4 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
-12.6 NN O O
and NN O O
-21.6 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
combination NN O O
treatments NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
45.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
1,2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
groups NN O O
withdrew NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
hyperkalaemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
no NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
forced NN O O
to NN O O
withdraw NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
short-term NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
receptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10682031)

[ NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
tobramycin NN O I-INT
aerosols NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nosocomial NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aerosolized NN O O
tobramycin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
intubated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mechanically NN O I-PAR
ventilated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nosocomial NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
mechanically NN O I-PAR
ventilated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
nosocomial NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
betalactam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tobramycin NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
aerosolized NN O I-INT
tobramycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
aerosol NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
nebulizer NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Respiratory NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
good NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tobramycin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
extubated NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
18.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tobramycin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.23 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Aerosolized NN O O
tobramycin NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
ventilated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
nosocomial NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10719133)

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
biofeedback NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
white-coat NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
biofeedback NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
between NN O O
white-coat NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
white-coat NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
out-patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
out-patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
or NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
underwent NN O O
BF NN O I-INT
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
visited NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
to NN O O
measure NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
later NN O O
underwent NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
BF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
BPs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
white-coat NN O I-OUT
hypertensives NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
essential NN O I-OUT
hypertensives NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
22/11 NN O O
and NN O O
14/8 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
but NN O O
later NN O O
suppressed NN O O
by NN O O
BF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Under NN O O
BF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
pulse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
elevation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
better NN O O
suppressed NN O O
in NN O O
white-coat NN O O
hypertensives NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertensives NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pressor NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
differentiated NN O O
BF NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10734271)

Computer-assisted NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
effective NN O O
instructional NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
education NN O O
? NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
computer-assisted NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
lecture-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
influencing NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
preventive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Students NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Human NN O I-PAR
Sexuality NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
152 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
CAI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Lecture NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
No NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CAI NN O O
group NN O O
reviewed NN O O
a NN O O
1-hour NN O O
long NN O O
CAI NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Lecture NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-hour NN O O
long NN O O
lecture NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
No NN O O
Intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
measured NN O O
selected NN O O
Social NN O I-OUT
Cognitive NN O I-OUT
Theory NN O I-OUT
constructs NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
preventive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MANCOVA NN O O
, NN O O
ANCOVA NN O O
and NN O O
Post NN O O
Hoc NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
utilized NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
analyses NN O O
disclosed NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Lecture NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CAI NN O O
group NN O O
scored NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
scales NN O I-OUT
measuring NN O I-OUT
autoimmune NN O I-OUT
deficiency NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AIDS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-evaluative NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
motivation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
practice NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
preventive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
current NN O O
partner NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
No NN O O
Intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CAI NN O O
group NN O O
scored NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
scales NN O I-OUT
measuring NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
motivation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
motivation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
CAI-based NN O O
programs NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
delivering NN O O
instruction NN O O
on NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
limitations NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
program NN O O
is NN O O
best NN O O
utilized NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
uses NN O O
several NN O O
different NN O O
delivery NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10735900)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
to NN O O
increase NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
dose-intensity NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
very NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
lenogastrim NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
can NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
dose-intensity NN O O
( NN O O
CDI NN O O
) NN O O
delivered NN O O
during NN O O
consolidation NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-seven NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
slow NN O O
early NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
55 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
translocation NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
; NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
; NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Consolidation NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O O
first NN O O
, NN O O
third NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fifth NN O O
courses NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
cytarabine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
, NN O O
fourth NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sixth NN O O
courses NN O O
included NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
COPADM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
course NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
scheduled NN O O
course NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
as NN O O
soon NN O O
as NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
count NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
1 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
count NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
100 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
. NN O O

CDI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
interval NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
course NN O O
to NN O O
hematologic NN O O
recovery NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
fifth NN O O
course NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
CDI NN O O
= NN O O
105-day NN O O
interval NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
CDI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
non-G-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
105 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
91 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
shorter NN O O
post-R3 NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
post-COPADM NN O I-INT
intervals NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
R3 NN O O
courses NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intravenous NN O I-OUT
antibiotics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
COPADM NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
granulocytopenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Finally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
3-year NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
can NN O O
increase NN O O
CDI NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Its NN O O
effects NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
regimen NN O O
given NN O O
before NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
CDI NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
disease NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10741095)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
long-term NN O O
asthma NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
asthma NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
nedocromil NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BDP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
salmeterol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BDP NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Symptom NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
peak NN O O
expiratory NN O O
flow NN O O
( NN O O
PEF NN O O
) NN O O
maximal NN O O
amplitude NN O O
, NN O O
forced NN O O
expiratory NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
methacholine NN O O
reactivity NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
PEF NN O O
variability NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
BDP NN O O
and NN O O
BDP NN O O
+ NN O O
S NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
and NN O O
bronchial NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
methacholine NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BDP NN O O
+ NN O O
S NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PEF NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
hyperreactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
NS NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BDP NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
methacholine NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
BDP NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
persisted NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
beclomethasone NN O I-OUT
dipropionate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
salmeterol NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
earlier NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
beclomethasone NN O I-OUT
dipropionate NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
nedocromil NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Assuming NN O O
that NN O O
bronchial NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
indirect NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
airway NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
overtreatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
classification NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
International NN O I-OUT
Guidelines NN O I-OUT
could NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10741842)

Asthma NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
environment NN O O
of NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Seattle-King NN O O
County NN O O
healthy NN O O
homes NN O O
project NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Childhood NN O O
asthma NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
growing NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
concern NN O O
in NN O O
low-income NN O O
urban NN O O
communities NN O O
. NN O O

Indoor NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
asthma NN O O
triggers NN O O
has NN O O
emerged NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
exacerbations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
describe NN O O
indoor NN O O
environmental NN O O
conditions NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
asthma NN O O
triggers NN O O
among NN O O
a NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Seattle/King NN O I-PAR
County NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Washington NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
caregiver NN O I-PAR
knowledge NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
resources NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
triggers NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
are NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
in-person NN O O
, NN O O
structured NN O O
, NN O O
closed-end NN O O
interviews NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
caretakers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
households NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incomes NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
poverty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Additional NN O O
information NN O O
is NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
home NN O O
inspection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
Seattle-King NN O I-PAR
County NN O I-PAR
Healthy NN O I-PAR
Homes NN O I-PAR
Project NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
empower NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
reduce NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
indoor NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
triggers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
findings NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
homes NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
112 NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
households NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
smoker NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
37.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
homes NN O O
. NN O O

Mold NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
visible NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
26.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
homes NN O O
, NN O O
water NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
18.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
homes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
damp NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
64.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
households NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
39.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
caregivers NN O O
were NN O O
aware NN O O
that NN O O
excessive NN O O
moisture NN O O
can NN O O
increase NN O O
exposures NN O O
to NN O O
allergens NN O O
. NN O O

Dust-trapping NN O I-OUT
reservoirs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
common NN O O
; NN O O
76.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
bedrooms NN O O
had NN O O
carpeting NN O O
. NN O O

Cockroach NN O I-OUT
infestation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
23.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
caregivers NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
57.1 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
roaches NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
19.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
allergy-control NN O I-OUT
mattress NN O I-OUT
covers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Many NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
King NN O O
County NN O O
live NN O O
in NN O O
indoor NN O O
environments NN O O
that NN O O
place NN O O
them NN O O
at NN O O
substantial NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
ongoing NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
asthma NN O O
triggers NN O O
. NN O O

Substandard NN O O
housing NN O O
and NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
resources NN O O
often NN O O
underlie NN O O
these NN O O
exposures NN O O
. NN O O

Initiatives NN O O
involving NN O O
health NN O O
educators NN O O
, NN O O
outreach NN O O
workers NN O O
, NN O O
medical NN O O
providers NN O O
, NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
insurers NN O O
, NN O O
housing NN O O
agencies NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
elected NN O O
officials NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
these NN O O
exposures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10826576)

Identifying NN O O
the NN O O
indications NN O O
for NN O O
laparoscopically NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
abdominal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
fibroids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
laparoscopically NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LAVH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
fibroids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
San NN O I-PAR
Paolo NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Milan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
POPULATION NN O O
Sixty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
suitable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
fibroids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Randomisation NN O O
between NN O O
LAVH NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
TAH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
outcomes NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
series NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
uteri NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
500 NN O O
g NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
uteri NN O O
> NN O O
500 NN O O
g NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
To NN O O
establish NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
approaches NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
400 NN O O
g NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
LAVH NN O I-INT
and NN O O
TAH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
for NN O O
LAVH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
135 NN O O
min NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
120 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
TAH NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
LAVH NN O I-INT
had NN O O
less NN O O
analgesics NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
5.8 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LAVH NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
TAH NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
weight NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
analgesics NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Conversions NN O O
of NN O O
LAVH NN O O
to NN O O
laparotomy NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
3/11 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
0/20 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
TAH NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
LAVH NN O I-INT
has NN O O
advantages NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
removing NN O O
uteri NN O O
weighing NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
500 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
comparable NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
less NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
shorter NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
uteri NN O O
weighing NN O O
> NN O O
500 NN O O
g NN O O
LAVH NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
recovery NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
longer NN O O
operating NN O O
time NN O O
than NN O O
TAH NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
conversion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
laparotomy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10832772)

Secretin NN O O
and NN O O
autism NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
two-part NN O O
clinical NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
anecdotal NN O O
reports NN O O
have NN O O
touted NN O O
the NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
( NN O O
GI NN O O
) NN O O
hormone NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
or NN O O
literature NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
its NN O O
viability NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
undertook NN O O
a NN O O
two-part NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
these NN O O
claims NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
2.7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
IU/kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
parents NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visits NN O O
( NN O O
3-6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
M NN O O
= NN O O
3.7 NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
1.4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
labeled NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Pervasive NN O I-PAR
Developmental NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
Not NN O I-PAR
Otherwise NN O I-PAR
Specified NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
diagnostic NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Autistic NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
concurrently NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
reported NN O O
minimal NN O O
but NN O O
potentially NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
including NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
receptive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
or NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequently NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
responsive NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
began NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
also NN O O
included NN O O
8 NN O O
newly NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
alternatively NN O O
entered NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
with NN O O
crossover NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6.5 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
beginning NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
inquiries NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
although NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O O
it NN O O
produced NN O O
few NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
changes NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10832774)

Assessment NN O O
in NN O O
multisite NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
RUPP NN O I-PAR
Network NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Research NN O O
Units NN O O
on NN O O
Pediatric NN O O
Psychopharmacology NN O O
. NN O O

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
poses NN O O
more NN O O
challenging NN O O
problems NN O O
than NN O O
ordinarily NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
multisite NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
uncommunicative NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
extremely NN O I-PAR
heterogeneous NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
problem NN O I-PAR
presentation NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
current NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
treatments NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
alter NN O O
most NN O O
core NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Autism NN O O
Research NN O O
Units NN O O
on NN O O
Pediatric NN O O
Psychopharmacology NN O O
( NN O O
RUPP NN O O
Autism NN O O
Network NN O O
) NN O O
resolved NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
problems NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
RCT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children/adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
inappropriateness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
anchors NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Global NN O O
Impression NN O O
of NN O O
Severity NN O O
( NN O O
CGI-S NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
resolved NN O O
by NN O O
defining NN O O
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
CGI-S NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
communication NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compromising NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
informant NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
addressed NN O O
by NN O O
several NN O O
strategies NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
careful NN O I-OUT
questioning NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
providers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-OUT
exams NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
broad NN O O
subject NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
requires NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
individual NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
spectrum NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
problems NN O O
of NN O O
neuropsychologically NN O O
testing NN O O
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sometimes NN O I-PAR
noncompliant NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
requires NN O O
careful NN O O
instrument NN O O
selection/adaptation NN O O
and NN O O
flexible NN O O
administration NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
problems NN O O
of NN O O
assessing NN O O
low-end NN O I-OUT
IQs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
neglected NN O O
by NN O O
most NN O O
standardized NN O O
test NN O O
developers NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
resolved NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
algorithm NN O O
of NN O O
test NN O O
hierarchy NN O O
. NN O O

Scarcity NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
autism-adapted NN O O
cognitive NN O O
and NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
standardization NN O O
required NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
, NN O O
specially NN O O
adapted NN O O
battery NN O O
. NN O O

Reliability NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Interview NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
currently NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
valid NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
instrument NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
clinician NN O O
instruments NN O O
required NN O O
extensive NN O O
cross-site NN O O
training NN O O
( NN O O
in-person NN O O
, NN O O
videotape NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
teleconference NN O O
sessions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Definition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
responder NN O O
required NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
individually NN O O
relevant NN O O
target NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
synthesis NN O O
of NN O O
possible NN O O
modest NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
domains NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
acceptance NN O O
of NN O O
attainable NN O O
though NN O O
imperfect NN O O
goals NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
assessment NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
developed NN O O
is NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
RCT NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
McDougle NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
2000 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
methodological NN O O
challenges NN O O
are NN O O
described NN O O
elsewhere NN O O
( NN O O
Scahill NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
2000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
problems NN O O
and NN O O
solutions NN O O
are NN O O
partially NN O O
shared NN O O
with NN O O
RCTs NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
treatments NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10837440)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
5 NN O O
day NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
cefdinir NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O O
day NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
bronchitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
exacerbations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
bronchitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cefdinir NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
bd NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
bd NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
548 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
281 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
test-of-cure NN O O
visit NN O O
were NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
114/142 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
100/139 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cefdinir NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cefprozil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Respiratory NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
pathogens NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
409 NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
548 NN O O
admission NN O O
sputum NN O O
specimens NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
predominant NN O O
pathogens NN O O
being NN O O
Haemophilus NN O O
parainfluenzae NN O O
, NN O O
Haemophilus NN O O
influenzae NN O O
, NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
aureus NN O O
and NN O O
Moraxella NN O O
catarrhalis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
microbiological NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
test-of-cure NN O O
visit NN O O
were NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
157 NN O O
of NN O O
193 NN O O
pathogens NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
166 NN O O
of NN O O
198 NN O O
pathogens NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cefdinir NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cefdinir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cefprozil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
most NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
5 NN O O
day NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
cefdinir NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
bronchitis NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O O
day NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10871578)

Plasma NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
status NN O O
after NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
result NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
free NN O O
radical NN O O
formation NN O O
and NN O O
depletion NN O O
of NN O O
tissue NN O O
antioxidants NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
whether NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
during NN O O
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supports NN O O
systemic NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
whether NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
circulating NN O O
antioxidants NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
whether NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
standard NN O O
PN NN O I-INT
maintains NN O O
systemic NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
concentrations NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
PN NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
micronutrients NN O O
and NN O O
minimal NN O O
lipids NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
amounts NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dextrose NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
micronutrients NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
120 NN O O
kJ/d NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
solution NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
micronutrients NN O I-INT
( NN O O
identical NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
standard NN O O
PN NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
lipid NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
kJ/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
conditioning NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
serially NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
after NN O O
BMT NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alpha- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gamma-tocopherol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
GSH NN O I-OUT
redox NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
became NN O O
more NN O O
oxidized NN O O
after NN O O
conditioning NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
cysteine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
cystine NN O O
concentrations NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GSH NN O I-OUT
peroxidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
alpha-tocopherol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
standard NN O O
PN NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
antioxidants NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
GSH-glutathione NN O I-OUT
disulfide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cysteine-cystine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
occurs NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
BMT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Standard NN O O
PN NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
status NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
micronutrients NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
PN NN O O
formulations NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
BMT NN O I-INT
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10902449)

[ NN O O
Comparative NN O O
study NN O O
between NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
prilocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
by NN O O
the NN O O
subarachnoid NN O O
route NN O O
in NN O O
transurethral NN O I-PAR
resections NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
spinal NN O O
block NN O O
with NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
prilocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
short NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
possible NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
vesical NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-III NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
prilocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
27 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.8 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

We NN O I-INT
collected NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
blockades NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blockades NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Demographic NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
ASA NN O O
classification NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
120.92 NN O O
+/- NN O O
36.21 NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
prilocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
145.83 NN O O
+/- NN O O
35.81 NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
106.29 NN O O
+/- NN O O
38.16 NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
prilocaine NN O O
and NN O O
133.16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
42.21 NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
mepivacaine NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mepivacaine NN O O
group NN O O
suffered NN O O
slight NN O O
postoperative NN O O
cephalea NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
offer NN O O
good NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
stability NN O O
and NN O O
few NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
shorter NN O O
with NN O O
prilocaine NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
mepivacaine NN O O
, NN O O
making NN O O
prilocaine NN O O
more NN O O
appropriate NN O O
for NN O O
short NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10945514)

Combination NN O O
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
combination NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Hydrocodone NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
with NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
approved NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
combination NN O O
analgesic NN O O
containing NN O O
an NN O O
opioid NN O O
and NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
repeated-dose NN O O
, NN O O
active-comparator NN O O
, NN O O
4-week NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
469 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
1-tablet NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
156 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
2-tablet NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
153 NN O O
) NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
HI2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
2-tablet NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O O
combination NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CA NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
160 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
comparator NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
through NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
supplemental NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
discontinued NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
unsatisfactory NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
global NN O O
assessment NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
469 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
255 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
54.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
214 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
45.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
51.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Types NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
214 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
45.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
arthritic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
145 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
30.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
musculoskeletal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
13.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
1.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
0.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
postherpetic NN O I-PAR
neuralgic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
1.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
neurologic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
4.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
unclassified NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
2.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
351 NN O O
( NN O O
74.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
opioid NN O O
or NN O O
opioid-nonopioid NN O O
combination NN O O
analgesics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI2 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.25+/-0.89 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI1 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
1.98+/-0.87 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
CA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
1.85+/-0.96 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI2 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.94+/-0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI1 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
3.23+/-0.76 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.036 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
CA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
3.26+/-0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
supplemental NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI2 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.24+/-0.49 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI1 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.34+/-0.58 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.021 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
CA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.49+/-0.85 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
discontinued NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
unsatisfactory NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI2 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
; NN O O
7.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HI2 NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
CA NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
vs NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
vs NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
vs NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
vs NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
vs NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
vs NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
supplemental NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
vs NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
vs NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
vs NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
vs NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
vs NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
vs NN O O
HI1 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.023 NN O O
vs NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
HI1 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
any NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
variable NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
experiencing NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI2 NN O O
( NN O O
127 NN O O
; NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
HI1 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
124 NN O O
; NN O O
79.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
129 NN O O
; NN O O
80.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
discontinued NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI2 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
; NN O O
26.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HI1 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
; NN O O
14.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
2-tablet NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
1-tablet NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O O
or NN O O
2-tablet NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
1-tablet NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
2-tablet NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10947757)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cytokine NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
minor NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
or NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Venous NN O O
samples NN O O
for NN O O
interleukin NN O O
( NN O O
IL NN O O
) NN O O
-1beta NN O O
, NN O O
IL-2 NN O O
, NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
, NN O O
tumour NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor-alpha NN O O
( NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
interferon-gamma NN O O
( NN O O
IFN-gamma NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
before NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
incision NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
low NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
incision NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
IL-1beta NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IFN-gamma NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
IL-1beta NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
others NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
pre-induction NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
IL-1beta NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
IFN-gamma NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
pre-incisional NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
IL-1beta NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
IFN-gamma NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
surgery NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Pre-incisionally NN O O
, NN O O
IL-2 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
pre-induction NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
IL-2 NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
pre-incision NN O O
and NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
surgery NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10957888)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
of NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
erythromycin NN O I-INT
stearate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
erythromycin NN O I-INT
stearate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
mild NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-six NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
doing NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
obligatory NN O I-PAR
military NN O I-PAR
service NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
treated NN O O
: NN O O
29 NN O O
with NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
12-hourly NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
12-hourly NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
27 NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
erythromycin NN O I-INT
stearate NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
6-hourly NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
course NN O O
being NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
able NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
28 NN O O
receiving NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
28 NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
stearate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
clinical NN O O
cure NN O O
or NN O O
improvement NN O O
: NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
stearate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
stearate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mostly NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
caused NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
18.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
stearate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
success NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10986219)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
L-ornithine-L-aspartate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
TIPS NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
glutamine NN O I-PAR
challenge NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIM NN O O
An NN O O
oral NN O O
glutamine NN O O
load NN O O
in NN O O
cirrhotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
awaiting NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
a NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
ammonia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychometric NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
were NN O O
reversed NN O O
by NN O O
hepatic NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

L-Ornithine-L-aspartate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LOLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
ammonia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
psychometric NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
encephalopathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
LOLA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
encephalopathy NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
challenging NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
by NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
glutamine NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
cirrhotics NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
transjugular NN O I-PAR
intrahepatic NN O I-PAR
portosystemic NN O I-PAR
shunts NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TIPS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
TIPS NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
two NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
glutamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
challenges NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
LOLA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
one NN O O
occasion NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Psychometric NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
choice NN O O
reaction NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
CRT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O O
connection NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
glutamine NN O O
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
electroencephalography NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
ammonia NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
ammonia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
27 NN O O
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
micromol/l NN O O
in NN O O
non-TIPS NN O O
and NN O O
76 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
micromol/l NN O O
in NN O O
TIPS NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O I-OUT
CRT NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.643 NN O O
( NN O O
0.033 NN O O
) NN O O
s NN O O
in NN O O
non-TIPS NN O O
and NN O O
0.825 NN O O
( NN O O
0.076 NN O O
) NN O O
s NN O O
in NN O O
TIPS NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
non-TIPS NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
ammonia NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
micromol/l NN O O
when NN O O
LOLA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
62 NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
micromol/l NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
alteration NN O O
in NN O O
psychometric NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
non-TIPS NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
glutamine NN O O
when NN O O
LOLA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
but NN O O
when NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
, NN O O
glutamine NN O O
caused NN O O
prolongation NN O O
of NN O O
CRT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Glutamine NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
psychometric NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
TIPS NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
LOLA NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
LOLA NN O I-INT
ameliorated NN O O
the NN O O
deleterious NN O O
psychometric NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
glutamine NN O O
in NN O O
Child NN O O
's NN O O
grade NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
TIPS NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
supports NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
in NN O O
hepatic NN O O
encephalopathy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10986363)

Superior NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
activation NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
stimulus NN O O
representations NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
underlie NN O O
superior NN O O
discrimination NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
object-based NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
negative NN O I-INT
priming NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
within NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
search NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Object-based NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
priming NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
result NN O O
provides NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
object-based NN O I-OUT
representations NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
search NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
performance NN O I-INT
and NN O O
further NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
notion NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
excitatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
guidance NN O I-OUT
mechanisms NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
target NN O O
location NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O O
search NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
overall NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
children NN O O
at NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
search NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
replicating NN O O
demonstrations NN O O
of NN O O
superior NN O O
discrimination NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
nor NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
priming NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
excitatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
operate NN O I-OUT
comparably NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
light NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
discriminate NN O O
between NN O O
items NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
specifically NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
argued NN O O
that NN O O
superior NN O O
discrimination NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
enhanced NN O O
top-down NN O O
excitatory NN O O
and NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10992833)

Onset/offset NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intubating NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rapacuronium NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
rocuronium NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
offset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
intubating NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
rapacuronium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rocuronium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
assessor-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
rapacuronium NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
rocuronium NN O I-INT
0.6 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
facilitate NN O I-INT
tracheal NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Anaesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
maintained NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
min-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
end-tidal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
66 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N2O NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
subgroup NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
electromyographic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Datex NN O I-INT
Relaxograph NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
42 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
s NN O O
and NN O O
44 NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
99 NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
98 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
intubating NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
s NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
good-to-excellent NN O O
in NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
rapacuronium NN O O
and NN O O
rocuronium NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rapacuronium NN O O
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
rocuronium NN O O
( NN O O
87 NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
141 NN O O
( NN O O
65 NN O O
) NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
s NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
69 NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
50 NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
with NN O O
rapacuronium NN O O
than NN O O
rocuronium NN O O
during NN O O
propofol NN O O
( NN O O
15.0 NN O O
( NN O O
3.2 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
39.1 NN O O
( NN O O
14.2 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
( NN O O
15.1 NN O O
( NN O O
4.2 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
47.8 NN O O
( NN O O
19.0 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
rapacuronium NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
similar NN O O
intubating NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
shorter NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
rocuronium NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10992834)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
monitoring NN O O
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
muscles NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
surface NN O I-PAR
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
electromyography NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
rocuronium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.6 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
adductor NN O O
pollicis NN O O
muscle NN O O
using NN O O
electromyography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
acceleromyography NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AMG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
adductor NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
muscles NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
electromyographic NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
disposable NN O O
surface NN O O
electrode NN O O
attached NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cuff NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
tracheal NN O O
tube NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
larynx NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
47 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
( NN O O
92 NN O O
+/- NN O O
42 NN O O
and NN O O
106 NN O O
+/- NN O O
38 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
+/- NN O O
31 NN O O
and NN O O
64 NN O O
+/- NN O O
30 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
comparable NN O O
degrees NN O O
of NN O O
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
succinylcholine NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
adductor NN O I-OUT
pollicis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
and NN O O
0.9 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
( NN O O
EMG NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
+/- NN O O
39 NN O O
vs NN O O
145 NN O O
+/- NN O O
48 NN O O
s NN O O
and NN O O
99 NN O O
+/- NN O O
31 NN O O
s NN O O
; NN O O
AMG NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
39 NN O O
vs NN O O
124 NN O O
+/- NN O O
53 NN O O
s NN O O
and NN O O
106 NN O O
+/- NN O O
38 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
adductor NN O I-OUT
pollicis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AMG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
T4 NN O O
: NN O O
T1 NN O O
= NN O O
0.7 NN O O
, NN O O
54 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
21 NN O O
vs NN O O
8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
surface NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
electrode NN O O
proved NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
, NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
reliable NN O O
in NN O O
measuring NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
larynx NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11004058)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
hyperalgesia NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
heat/capsaicin NN O O
sensitization NN O O
model NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Although NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
neuropathic NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
non-neuropathic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
heat/capsaicin NN O O
sensitization NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sensitization NN O O
was NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
heating NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
45 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
30-min NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
0.075 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
capsaicin NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
by NN O O
periodically NN O O
reheating NN O O
the NN O O
sensitized NN O O
skin NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
received NN O O
IV NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
bolus NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
infusion NN O O
3 NN O O
mg. NN O O
kg NN O O
. NN O O

h NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
for NN O O
85 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Areas NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O O
hyperalgesia NN O O
, NN O O
heat NN O O
pain NN O O
detection NN O O
thresholds NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
painfulness NN O O
of NN O O
stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
45 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
long NN O O
thermal NN O O
stimulation NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
quantified NN O O
. NN O O

Systemic NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
hyperalgesia NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
brush NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
von NN O O
Frey NN O O
hair NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

Lidocaine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
heat NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
painfulness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
long NN O I-OUT
thermal NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
normal NN O O
skin NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
infusion NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
mid-antiarrhythmic NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
nociceptive NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
does NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
and NN O O
selective NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
hyperalgesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
nonneuropathic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigates NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
experimental-induced NN O I-OUT
hyperalgesia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hyperalgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
pain NN O O
model NN O O
that NN O O
uses NN O O
heat NN O O
and NN O O
capsaicin NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

Systemic NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
secondary NN O O
hyperalgesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11041498)

An NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
chemical NN O O
arthrodesis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O I-PAR
interphalangeal NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
horse NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
using NN O O
monoiodoacetate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
monoiodoacetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MIA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
arthrodesis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
interphalangeal NN O O
joint NN O O
( NN O O
PIJ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
fusion NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O I-PAR
horses NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
3 NN O O
injections NN O O
( NN O O
Weeks NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
MIA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
60 NN O O
mg/mL NN O O
) NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
or NN O O
left NN O O
front NN O O
PIJ NN O O
. NN O O

Peri-operatively NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
horses NN O O
received NN O O
phenylbutazone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
butorphanol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
abaxial NN O I-INT
sesamoidean NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
to NN O O
relieve NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
horses NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
general NN O O
health NN O O
, NN O O
lameness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
swelling NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O

Radiographs NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
biweekly NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
bony NN O O
fusion NN O O
. NN O O

Horses NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
non-exercised NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exercised NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
trotting NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
treadmill NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
m/s NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
13 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
horses NN O O
were NN O O
euthanized NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Slab NN O O
sections NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PIJ NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
grossly NN O O
and NN O O
radiographically NN O O
for NN O O
bony NN O O
fusion NN O O
. NN O O

Histologic NN O O
examinations NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
articular NN O O
cartilage NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
horses NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
after NN O O
developing NN O O
soft NN O O
tissue NN O O
necrosis NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
site NN O O
, NN O O
septic NN O O
arthritis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
necrotic NN O O
tendinitis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remaining NN O O
horses NN O O
remained NN O O
healthy NN O O
, NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
grade NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
lameness NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
swelling NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PIJ NN O O
region NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
horses NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bony NN O I-OUT
fusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
however NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
fusion NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
present NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
injected NN O I-OUT
joints NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
examined NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
postmortem NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Histologic NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O I-OUT
thinning NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cartilage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diffuse NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chondrocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
calcified NN O I-OUT
zone NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjectively NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
influence NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cartilage NN O I-OUT
destruction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
chemical NN O I-OUT
arthrodesis NN O I-OUT
can NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
advocated NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bony NN O I-OUT
fusion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11069570)

Probiotics NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
atopic NN O I-PAR
eczema NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Over NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
two NN O O
decades NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O O
diseases NN O O
has NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
industrialized NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
consequently NN O O
new NN O O
approaches NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
probiotics NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
allergic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
4.6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
manifested NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
eczema NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
exclusive NN O I-PAR
breast-feeding NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
infant NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
substitute NN O I-PAR
formula NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
weaned NN O O
to NN O O
probiotic-supplemented NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Bifidobacterium NN O I-INT
lactis NN O I-INT
Bb-12 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
GG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATCC NN O I-INT
53103 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
extensively NN O I-INT
hydrolysed NN O I-INT
whey NN O I-INT
formulas NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
probiotics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
extent NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
atopic NN O O
eczema NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
nutrition NN O O
of NN O O
infants NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O O
cytokines/chemokines NN O O
and NN O O
soluble NN O O
cell NN O O
surface NN O O
adhesion NN O O
molecules NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
and NN O O
methyl-histamine NN O O
and NN O O
eosinophilic NN O O
protein NN O O
X NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
SCORAD NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
reflecting NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atopic NN O I-OUT
eczema NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
7-25 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
breast-feeding NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
probiotic-supplemented NN O O
formulas NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
unsupplemented NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
chi NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
12.27 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
. NN O O

SCORAD NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Bifidobacterium NN O O
lactis NN O O
Bb-12 NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
0-3.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Lactobacillus NN O O
GG NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1-8.7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vs NN O O
unsupplemented NN O O
13.4 NN O O
( NN O O
4.5-18.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
soluble NN O O
CD4 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
serum NN O O
and NN O O
eosinophilic NN O O
protein NN O O
X NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
clinical NN O O
demonstration NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
probiotic NN O O
strains NN O O
modifying NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
allergic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
data NN O O
further NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
probiotics NN O O
may NN O O
counteract NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O O
milieu NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combined NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
probiotic NN O O
strains NN O O
will NN O O
guide NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
the NN O O
weaning NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
sensitization NN O O
to NN O O
newly NN O O
encountered NN O O
antigens NN O O
is NN O O
initiated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
probiotic NN O O
approach NN O O
may NN O O
thus NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
direction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
search NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
foods NN O O
for NN O O
allergy NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
prevention NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11106679)

Chemoprevention NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
dysplasia NN O O
: NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anti-helicobacter NN O I-INT
pylori NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
identified NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
precursor NN O O
lesions NN O O
in NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
province NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Nari?o NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Colombia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Andes NN O I-PAR
Mountains NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
chemoprevention NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
histologic NN O I-PAR
diagnoses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
multifocal NN O I-PAR
nonmetaplastic NN O I-PAR
atrophy NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
metaplasia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
precancerous NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Individuals NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
anti-Helicobacter NN O I-INT
pylori NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
corresponding NN O I-INT
placebos NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Gastric NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
specimens NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
72 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Relative NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
multifocal NN O O
nonmetaplastic NN O O
atrophy NN O O
and NN O O
intestinal NN O O
metaplasia NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
with NN O O
multivariate NN O O
polytomous NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
statistical NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
two-sided NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
three NN O O
basic NN O O
interventions NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
Relative NN O O
risks NN O O
were NN O O
4.8 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
1.6-14.2 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
anti-H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.7-15.0 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O I-INT
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5.0 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.7-14.4 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O I-INT
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
atrophy NN O O
. NN O O

Corresponding NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
intestinal NN O O
metaplasia NN O O
were NN O O
3.1 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.0-9.3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3.4 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.1-9.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3.3 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.1-9.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Combinations NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Curing NN O O
the NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
( NN O O
which NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
) NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
precursor NN O O
lesions NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risks NN O O
= NN O O
8.7 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
2.7-28.2 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrophy NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
5.4 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.7-17.6 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
metaplasia NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
studied NN O O
, NN O O
effective NN O O
anti-H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
micronutrients NN O O
may NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
precancerous NN O O
process NN O O
, NN O O
mostly NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
precursor NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
gastric NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11154142)

Unopposed NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
total NN O O
plasma NN O O
factor NN O O
VII NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
active NN O O
factor NN O O
VII NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Estrogen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
thromboembolism NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
52.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
therefore NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
unopposed NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
fasting NN O O
and NN O O
fat-load-stimulated NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
factor NN O O
VII NN O O
versus NN O O
active NN O O
factor NN O O
VII NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
chromogenic NN O O
assay NN O O
; NN O O
plasma NN O O
active NN O O
FVII NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
recently NN O O
developed NN O O
method NN O O
using NN O O
truncated NN O O
tissue NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
17beta-estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postprandial NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
17 NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
postprandial NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
both NN O O
0.05 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.27 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.21 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
argue NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
idea NN O O
that NN O O
elevated NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
underlie NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
unopposed NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (11159256)

The NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
neuropathic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
regional NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
carbamazepine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sustained-release NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
pretreated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
exclusively NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
switched NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
painful NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
SCS NN O I-INT
inactivation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
mode NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
pain-relieving NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
carbamazepine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CMZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
opioids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
CMZ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
during NN O O
an NN O O
SCS-free NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
CMZ NN O I-INT
elimination NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
sustained-release NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
90 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
intolerable NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
authorized NN O O
to NN O O
reactivate NN O O
their NN O O
SCS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
rated NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
numeric NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
38 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
delay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CMZ NN O I-INT
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
trend NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
insignificant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.41 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
CMZ NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
patient NN O O
showed NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
preferred NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-five NN O O
patients NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
SCS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
CMZ NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
neuropathic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Morphine NN O I-INT
obviously NN O O
requires NN O O
larger NN O O
individually NN O O
titrated NN O O
dosages NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
adequately NN O O
interpreted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11196013)

Spatial NN O I-INT
orientation NN O I-INT
adjustments NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Hong NN O I-PAR
Kong NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Abnormal NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
postures NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
visual NN O O
abilities NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
tasks NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
interactions NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Kowloon NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Hong NN O I-PAR
Kong NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
abilities NN O O
. NN O O

Positive NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evident NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
wore NN O I-INT
ambient NN O I-INT
prism NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
and NN O O
included NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
posture NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
slanted NN O O
to NN O O
erect NN O O
. NN O O

Adjustments NN O O
in NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O O
ball NN O O
catching NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
task NN O O
requiring NN O O
visual NN O O
tracking NN O O
and NN O O
eye-hand NN O O
coordination NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
alterations NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
behavioral NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11214014)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
myocardial NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
radical NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
coronary NN O O
bypass NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Allopurinol NN O I-INT
protects NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
from NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
radical NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
allopurinol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Allopurinol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
blind NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
and NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
opening NN O O
the NN O O
aorta NN O O
. NN O O

Oxygen NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
cross-clamping NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
sinus NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Levels NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
relative NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
electron NN O I-INT
spin NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O O
minute NN O O
after NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
spin-trapped NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
elevated NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
7.7 NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
: NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
8.6 NN O O
( NN O O
1.4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
non-significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.074 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
7.3 NN O O
( NN O O
0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
8.3 NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
the NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
8.6 NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
and NN O O
7.6 NN O O
( NN O O
0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
7.6 NN O O
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
8.3 NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Myocardial NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
radical NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-0.94 NN O O
( NN O O
1.21 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
and NN O O
+0.79 NN O O
( NN O O
0.96 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
being NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
an NN O O
increasing NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
free NN O O
radical NN O O
production NN O O
during NN O O
early NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
showed NN O O
less NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
its NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
antioxidative NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11237545)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
provocative NN O O
tests NN O O
for NN O O
unexplained NN O I-PAR
syncope NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
isoprenaline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
diagnosing NN O O
vasovagal NN O I-OUT
syncope NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
, NN O O
specificity NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
head-up NN O O
tilt NN O O
with NN O O
isoprenaline NN O I-INT
head-up NN O O
tilt NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
vasovagal NN O O
syncope NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unexplained NN O I-PAR
syncope NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unexplained NN O I-PAR
syncope NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
passive NN O I-PAR
head-up NN O I-PAR
tilt NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
head-up NN O I-INT
tilt NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoprenaline NN O I-INT
head-up NN O I-INT
tilt NN O I-INT
( NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
5 NN O O
microg NN O O
x NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
apart NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
syncope NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pre-syncope NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
negative NN O I-PAR
passive NN O I-PAR
head-up NN O I-PAR
tilt NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glyceryl NN O I-OUT
trinitrate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
diagnosing NN O O
vasovagal NN O I-OUT
syncope NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
specificity NN O O
was NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Glyceryl NN O O
trinitrate NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Isoprenaline NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
64 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Side-effects NN O I-OUT
prevented NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
in NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Commonest NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intolerable NN O I-OUT
flushing NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
head-up NN O I-INT
tilt NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
isoprenaline NN O I-INT
head-up NN O I-INT
tilt NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
provocative NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
vasovagal NN O I-OUT
syncope NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
has NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11265037)

RAB-plate NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
sliding NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
screw NN O I-INT
for NN O O
unstable NN O I-PAR
trochanteric NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
stability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fixation NN O O
and NN O O
modes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
218 NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
sliding NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
screw NN O I-INT
has NN O O
gained NN O O
considerable NN O O
acceptance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
unstable NN O O
trochanteric NN O O
fractures NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
120 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
fixed NN O I-INT
angle NN O I-INT
blade-plate NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
buttress NN O I-INT
rod NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RAB-plate NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
encouraging NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
stability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fixation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
analyze NN O O
modes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
unstable NN O O
trochanteric NN O O
hip NN O O
fractures NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
devices NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
retrospective NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
review NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
218 NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Linear NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
angular NN O I-OUT
displacements NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
fragments NN O O
and NN O O
implant NN O I-OUT
migration NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
head NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
healing NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
adequacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
location NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
implant NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
head NN O O
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
fixation NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
postreduction NN O O
neck-shaft NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fractures NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
varus NN O I-OUT
angulation NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
healing NN O O
among NN O O
fractures NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
sliding NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
screw NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
vertical NN O I-OUT
migration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
device NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
head NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
implants NN O O
used NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fixation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
varus NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
screw/neck NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
20 NN O O
degrees NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lateral NN O O
projection NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
implant NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
or NN O O
posterior NN O O
position NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
RAB-plate NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
stable NN O O
fixation NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
maintained NN O O
postoperative NN O O
alignment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O O
predictors NN O O
for NN O O
fixation NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
identical NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
devices NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
screw/neck NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O O
significance NN O O
for NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
fixation NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11305684)

Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
N NN O O
, NN O O
N-dimethylglycine NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
N-dimethylglycine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
dietary NN O O
supplement NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
dimethylglycine NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
gender NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
matched NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dimethylglycine NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Maladaptive NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Domain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Standardized NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
examinations NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
33 NN O O
children NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
overall NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dimethylglycine NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
dimethylglycine NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
observed NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
heterogeneous NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
apparent NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
dimethylglycine NN O O
varied NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
children NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
positively NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
dimethylglycine NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dimethylglycine NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
quantitative NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dimethylglycine NN O O
behavioral NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
what NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11318056)

Variability NN O O
in NN O O
isochronous NN O I-INT
tapping NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
higher NN O O
order NN O O
dependencies NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
intertap NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

Isochronous NN O I-PAR
serial NN O I-PAR
interval NN O I-PAR
production NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ISIP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
data NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
from NN O O
unpaced NN O I-INT
finger NN O I-INT
tapping NN O I-INT
, NN O O
exhibit NN O O
higher NN O O
order NN O O
dependencies NN O O
( NN O O
drift NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
fact NN O O
has NN O O
largely NN O O
been NN O O
ignored NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
literature NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
reason NN O O
probably NN O O
being NN O O
that NN O O
influential NN O O
timing NN O O
models NN O O
assume NN O O
random NN O O
variability NN O O
. NN O O

Men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22-36 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
synchronization-continuation NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intertap NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ITI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
from NN O O
0.4 NN O O
s NN O O
to NN O O
2.2 NN O O
s. NN O O
ISIP NN O O
variability NN O O
was NN O O
partitioned NN O O
into NN O O
components NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
drift NN O O
and NN O O
1st-order NN O O
serial NN O O
correlation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
drift NN O O
contributes NN O O
substantially NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
dispersion NN O O
for NN O O
longer NN O O
ITIs NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
drift NN O O
and NN O O
1st-order NN O O
correlation NN O O
are NN O O
different NN O O
functions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ITI NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
drift NN O O
exhibits NN O O
break NN O O
close NN O O
to NN O O
1.0 NN O O
s NN O O
and NN O O
1.4 NN O O
s NN O O
ITI NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
breaks NN O O
correspond NN O O
to NN O O
qualitative NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
temporal NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
common NN O O
timing NN O O
processes NN O O
across NN O O
modalities NN O O
and NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11348533)

Clinical NN O O
description NN O O
of NN O O
encephalopathic NN O O
syndromes NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
occurrence NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
during NN O O
melarsoprol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
trypanosomiasis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Encephalopathies NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
feared NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
sleeping NN O O
sickness NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
melarsoprol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
existence NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
encephalopathic NN O O
syndromes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
encephalopathies NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
588 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
melarsoprol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
38 NN O I-PAR
encephalopathy NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
classified NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
types NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
leading NN O O
clinical NN O O
picture NN O O
: NN O O
coma NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
convulsion NN O O
type NN O O
and NN O O
psychotic NN O O
reactions NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
attributed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
convulsion NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
transient NN O O
event NN O O
of NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
with NN O O
convulsions NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
post-ictal NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
generalized NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
reaction NN O O
. NN O O

Febrile NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
preceding NN O O
the NN O O
reaction NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
coma NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
progredient NN O O
coma NN O O
lasting NN O O
several NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
patients NN O O
often NN O O
had NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
generalized NN O O
disease NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
bullous NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
reactions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

About NN O O
14/16 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
encephalopathic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
coma NN O O
type NN O O
were NN O O
infected NN O O
with NN O O
malaria NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
psychotic NN O O
reactions NN O O
or NN O O
abnormal NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
behaviour NN O O
( NN O O
3/38 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
who NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
alcohol NN O O
intake NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
encephalopathic NN O I-OUT
syndromes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
analysed NN O O
( NN O O
n=34 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
5.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
38.2 NN O O
% NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
any NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
encephalopathic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
signs NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
initiation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
appearance NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
11.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
2.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
bullous NN O I-OUT
eruptions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
4.5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
2.6 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
encephalopathic NN O O
syndromes NN O O
especially NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
coma NN O O
type NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11352886)

L-arginine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
S-nitrosoglutathione NN O I-INT
reduce NN O O
embolization NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
L-Arginine NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ex NN O O
vivo NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
as NN O O
yet NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

Doppler NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
can NN O O
detect NN O O
cerebral NN O O
emboli NN O O
noninvasively NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
embolic NN O O
signals NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
after NN O O
carotid NN O O
endarterectomy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
frequency NN O O
predicts NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
this NN O O
situation NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
antiplatelet NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
S-nitrosoglutathione NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GSNO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
physiological NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
donor NN O O
with NN O O
possible NN O O
platelet NN O O
specificity NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
endarterectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
manner NN O O
between NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
GSNO NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
for NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
starting NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
skin NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
pretreated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
heparin NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Transcranial NN O O
Doppler NN O O
recordings NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ipsilateral NN O O
middle NN O O
cerebral NN O O
artery NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
beginning NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
skin NN O O
closure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
embolic NN O I-OUT
signals NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
L-arginine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GSNO NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
; NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
embolic NN O I-OUT
signals NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
44.7 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
778 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
9.5 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
225 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
GSNO NN O I-INT
0.8 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
versus NN O O
control NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
signals NN O I-OUT
persisted NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
24-hour NN O O
recording NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Intravenous NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
GSNO NN O I-INT
attenuate NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
embolic NN O I-OUT
signals NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

Modulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NO NN O O
system NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
applications NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
thromboembolic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
ultrasonic NN O O
embolic NN O O
signal NN O O
detection NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
antiplatelet NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
relatively NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
numbers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11363044)

Peptide NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
trial NN O I-OUT
result NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11392343)

Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
example NN O O
, NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Thirty-nine NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
intent NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treat NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
5-19 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ICD-10 NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
Interview-Revised NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
Observation NN O I-PAR
Schedule-Generic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
Version NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-CV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
placebo NN O O
run-in NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
amantadine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
next NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
subsequent NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
parent-rated NN O I-OUT
ABC-CV NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
placebo NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
amantadine NN O O
at NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amantadine-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
absolute NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
clinician-rated NN O O
ABC-CVs NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
amantadine NN O O
-6.4 NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
-2.1 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.046 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
inappropriate NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-1.9 NN O O
versus NN O O
0.4 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CGI NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amantadine NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
improved NN O O
versus NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.076 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Amantadine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Parents NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
report NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
amantadine NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
clinician-rated NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
acting NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
glutamatergic NN O O
system NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
drug NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
must NN O O
take NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
placebo NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11420161)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
myocardial NN O I-INT
ischaemic/reperfusion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
radical NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CABG NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
free NN O O
radicals NN O O
( NN O O
FR NN O O
) NN O O
generation NN O O
after NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
and NN O O
during NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
in NN O O
CABG NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
was NN O O
two NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2-min NN O I-INT
ischaemia NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
3-min NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Free NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
electron NN O O
spin NN O O
resonance NN O O
spectroscopy NN O O
. NN O O

Global NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
9.7 NN O O
and NN O O
16.6 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
protocol NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
declamping NN O O
, NN O O
6.8 NN O O
and NN O O
13.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RVEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
protected NN O O
against NN O O
postoperative NN O O
stunning NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11435682)

Patient NN O O
positioning NN O O
influences NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SaO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
routine NN O O
positioning NN O O
affected NN O O
these NN O O
physiological NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
bedside NN O O
non-invasively NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
positions NN O I-INT
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
each NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lying NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
resulted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
slightly NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
SaO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-PAR
lying NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
right NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
statistically NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
right NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hemiparesis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
sit NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
chair NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
65 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
mostly NN O O
had NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O O
strokes NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
SaO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
sitting NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chair NN O O
than NN O O
when NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

About NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
severe NN O O
stroke NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
right NN O O
hemiparesis NN O O
and NN O O
concomitant NN O O
chest NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
experienced NN O O
falls NN O O
in NN O O
SaO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
for NN O O
> NN O O
/=2 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
certain NN O O
positions NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
hypoxia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
lying NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
current NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
patient NN O O
positioning NN O O
strategies NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
outcome NN O O
after NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11446476)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
gynaecologic NN O I-PAR
oncologic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
haemorrhagic NN O O
complications NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O O
( NN O O
LMWH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
conventional NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
gynaecological NN O I-PAR
oncologic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
102 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
gynaecologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
paraaortic NN O I-PAR
lymphadenectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
separated NN O O
into NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
2,500 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SH NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5,000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
for NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
, NN O O
drainage NN O O
, NN O O
transfusion NN O O
requirements NN O O
, NN O O
perioperative NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
decrease NN O O
, NN O O
wound NN O O
haematoma NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
deep NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
predispose NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DVT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
haemorrhage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
patient NN O O
developed NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
DVT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
haematoma NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
intra-abdominal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
antiFXa NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
strongly NN O O
with NN O O
patient NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
2,500 NN O O
IU NN O O
enoxaparin/day NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
more NN O O
bleeding NN O O
complications NN O O
than NN O O
SH NN O O
5,000 NN O O
IU NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11450816)

Lamotrigine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
glutamate NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
increased NN O O
or NN O O
its NN O O
receptors NN O O
up-regulated NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
excitotoxic NN O O
process NN O O
that NN O O
damages NN O O
neural NN O O
networks NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
behavioral NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
deficits NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
agent NN O O
that NN O O
modulates NN O O
glutamate NN O O
release NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
5.8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
children NN O O
on NN O O
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
upward NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
reach NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
maintained NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
evaluations NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
tapered NN O I-INT
down NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
ended NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
4-week NN O I-INT
drug-free NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
stereotypies NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lethargy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
reciprocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sharing NN O I-OUT
pleasures NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
socialization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
maintenance NN O O
phase NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
improvements NN O O
between NN O O
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Adaptive NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PL-ADOS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CARS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
marked NN O O
improvements NN O O
, NN O O
presumably NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
expectations NN O O
of NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11450818)

Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
attitudes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
toward NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
peer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
have NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
? NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
ratings NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
attitudes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
toward NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
peer NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
autism NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
ratings NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Third- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixth-grade NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
233 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
view NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
boy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
No NN O I-INT
Autism NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Autism NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Autism/Information NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
grade NN O O
levels NN O O
showed NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
toward NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
autism NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
rating NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
children NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
attributing NN O O
intentions NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
classmates NN O O
, NN O O
older NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
girls NN O O
gave NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Information NN O O
about NN O O
autism NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
ascribed NN O O
to NN O O
self NN O O
or NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11471578)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
with NN O O
advice NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Acupuncture NN O I-INT
is NN O O
becoming NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
technique NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
profession NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
with NN O O
advice NN O O
and NN O O
exercises NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
OA NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
awaiting NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
six NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
each NN O O
lasting NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
25 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
advice NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
for NN O O
their NN O O
hip NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
six NN O O
week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
it NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
ability NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.85 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
immediately NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
eight-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
between NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
eight-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
advice NN O O
and NN O O
exercises NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
OA NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hip NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11472320)

There NN O O
are NN O O
some NN O O
benefits NN O O
for NN O O
eradicating NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-ulcer NN O I-PAR
dyspepsia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
and NN O O
non-ulcer NN O O
dyspepsia NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
non-ulcer NN O I-PAR
dyspepsia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
129 NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
epigastric NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
gastro-oesophageal NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
124 NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
identical-appearing NN O I-PAR
placebos NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
( NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active-treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
N.S. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active-treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
the NN O O
active-treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
eradicating NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
relieve NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-ulcer NN O I-PAR
dyspepsia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
eradication NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11545629)

Penetration NN O O
of NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
into NN O O
the NN O O
aqueous NN O O
humor NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
filtering NN O I-PAR
blebs NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
ofloxacin NN O O
and NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
hydrochloride NN O O
in NN O O
aqueous NN O O
humor NN O O
after NN O O
topical NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O O
topical NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
filtering NN O I-PAR
blebs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
investigator-masked NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
involving NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
filtering NN O I-PAR
blebs NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
ophthalmic NN O O
solution NN O O
every NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
topical NN O O
plus NN O O
oral NN O O
regimen NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
100-mg NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
400-mg NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
24-26 NN O O
, NN O O
12-14 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
preceding NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
chromatographic NN O O
separation NN O O
and NN O O
mass NN O O
spectrometry NN O O
of NN O O
aqueous NN O O
samples NN O O
obtained NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Topical NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
treatment NN O O
yielded NN O O
mean NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ofloxacin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
0.75 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.21 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
aqueous NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
combined NN O O
topical NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
ofloxacin NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
than NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
( NN O O
3.84 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
vs NN O O
0.35 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
regimen NN O O
produced NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
ofloxacin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
topical NN O O
therapy NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Ofloxacin NN O O
penetrates NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-OUT
into NN O O
the NN O O
aqueous NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
filtering NN O O
blebs NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
after NN O O
combined NN O O
topical NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
ofloxacin NN O O
reaches NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
10-fold NN O O
greater NN O O
concentration NN O O
than NN O O
does NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
. NN O O

Combined NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bleb-associated NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11554438)

Dose NN O O
dependent NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Michaelis-Menten NN O O
parameters NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
major NN O O
metabolic NN O O
pathways NN O O
. NN O O

Dose NN O O
Dependency NN O O
for NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
major NN O O
metabolites NN O O
, NN O O
3-methylxanthine NN O O
( NN O O
3-MX NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
1-methyluric NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
1-MU NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
1,3-dimethyluric NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
DMU NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
administering NN O O
three NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
( NN O O
250 NN O O
, NN O O
375 NN O O
, NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
to NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
serum NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
metabolites NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
half NN O O
life NN O O
increased NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
doses NN O O
administered NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
dose NN O O
related NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fractional NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
3-MX NN O O
and NN O O
1-MU NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
related NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
fractional NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DMU NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
unchanged NN O O
theophylline NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
dose NN O O
related NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
3-MX NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
1-MU NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DMU NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
linear NN O O
urinary NN O O
excretion NN O O
kinetics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metabolites NN O O
. NN O O

Theophylline NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
3-MX NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
1-MU NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
dose NN O O
but NN O O
clearance NN O O
to NN O O
DMU NN O O
remained NN O O
unnaffected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
individual NN O O
Michaelis-Menten NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
Km NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Vmax NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Km NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
theophylline NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
3-MX NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
1-MU NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DMU NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
2.4+/-0.6 NN O O
, NN O O
5.1+/-1.8+/- NN O O
and NN O O
112.3+/-36.8 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
respectively NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Vmax NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
3.5+/-0.7 NN O O
, NN O O
7.5+/-2.6 NN O O
and NN O O
112.3+/-36.8 NN O O
mg/hr NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Km NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
N-demethylation NN O I-OUT
pathways NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3MX NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1-MU NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
serum NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
elimination NN O O
kinetics NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
is NN O O
nonlinear NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
concenntrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
saturable NN O O
formation NN O O
kinetics NN O O
of NN O O
3-MX NN O O
and NN O O
1-MU NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
we NN O O
did NN O O
n't NN O O
find NN O O
obvious NN O O
indication NN O O
for NN O O
nonlinear NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
DMU NN O O
at NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
concentration NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11561265)

Epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
patient-controlled NN O O
analgesia NN O O
: NN O O
postoperative NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
after NN O O
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
immediate NN O I-PAR
TRAM NN O I-PAR
flap NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
superior NN O O
pain NN O O
control NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
opioids NN O O
after NN O O
major NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
morphine NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
, NN O O
ambulation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
i.e. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
unilateral NN O I-PAR
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
immediate NN O I-PAR
transverse NN O I-PAR
rectus NN O I-PAR
abdominis NN O I-PAR
musculocutaneous NN O I-PAR
flap NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PCA NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
daily NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
100-mm NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ambulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
nutrition NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
evaluation NN O O
times NN O O
through NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
number NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
101 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
PCA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
126 NN O O
hours NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0498 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
ambulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
sounds NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tolerating NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
nutrition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea/vomiting NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
flatus NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
PCA NN O O
offered NN O O
improved NN O O
pain NN O O
control NN O O
after NN O O
breast NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
with NN O O
immediate NN O O
transverse NN O O
rectus NN O O
abdominis NN O O
musculocutaneous NN O O
flap NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
also NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
25-hour NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11683967)

Equivalent NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mitomycin NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
doxorubicin NN O I-OUT
instillation NN O O
to NN O O
bacillus NN O O
Calmette-Guerin NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
situ NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
elucidate NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
efficient NN O O
topical NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intravesical NN O O
mitomycin NN O O
C NN O O
plus NN O O
doxorubicin NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
bacillus NN O O
Calmette-Guerin NN O O
( NN O O
BCG NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
behavior NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
histological NN O O
grade NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
situ NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
intravesical NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
( NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
sequential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
first NN O O
line NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
non-responders NN O O
underwent NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
intravesical NN O O
therapy NN O O
alternately NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
topical NN O O
therapies NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
with NN O O
initial NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
18/21 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
BCG NN O O
and NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
17/21 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
mitomycin NN O O
C NN O O
plus NN O O
doxorubicin NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
grade NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
seven NN O O
initial NN O O
non-responders NN O O
, NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
by NN O O
subsequent NN O O
instillation NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
47 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
developed NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
therapies NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
appears NN O O
likely NN O O
that NN O O
mitomycin NN O O
C NN O O
plus NN O O
doxorubicin NN O O
instillation NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
equivalent NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
BCG NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
efficient NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
histological NN O O
grading NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
defining NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
behavior NN O O
of NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11691515)

Potentiation NN O O
of NN O O
bradykinin-induced NN O O
tissue NN O O
plasminogen NN O O
activator NN O O
release NN O O
by NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
( NN O O
ACE NN O O
) NN O O
inhibition NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
stimulated NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
tissue NN O O
plasminogen NN O O
activator NN O O
( NN O O
t-PA NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
endothelium NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
exert NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
endogenous NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O O
balance NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O I-PAR
forearms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
brachial NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
infusions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
endothelium-dependent NN O I-INT
vasodilators NN O I-INT
substance NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
pmol/min NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bradykinin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1,000 NN O I-PAR
pmol/min NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
endothelium-independent NN O I-INT
vasodilator NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
microg/min NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
occasions NN O O
following NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
matched NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
quinapril NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sodium NN O O
nitroprusside NN O O
, NN O O
substance NN O O
P NN O O
and NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
produced NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
infused NN O O
forearm NN O O
( NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
[ NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
sodium NN O O
nitroprusside NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
t-PA NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
increased NN O O
dose-dependently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infused NN O O
forearm NN O O
by NN O O
substance NN O O
P NN O O
and NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Bradykinin-induced NN O O
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
t-PA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
doubled NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
two-way NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
: NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.003 NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
t-PA NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
ns NN O O
for NN O O
interaction NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
substance NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
unaffected NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
and NN O O
marked NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
bradykinin-induced NN O O
t-PA NN O O
release NN O O
during NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
vascular NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibition NN O O
may NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
be NN O O
mediated NN O O
through NN O O
local NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
bradykinin-induced NN O O
t-PA NN O O
release NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11701433)

Oral NN O I-OUT
estrogen NN O I-OUT
antagonizes NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
actions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone-deficient NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
have NN O O
determined NN O O
whether NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
biological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
growth NN O O
hormone NN O O
( NN O O
GH NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
GH-deficient NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
separate NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
GHD NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
transdermal NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
wk NN O O
before NN O O
crossing NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
alternate NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
incremental NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1.0 NN O O
, NN O O
2.0 NN O O
IU/day NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
wk NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
insulin-like NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
IGF-I NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
estrogen NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
IU/day NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
lipid NN O O
oxidation NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
protein NN O O
metabolism NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
body NN O O
leucine NN O O
turnover NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
estrogen NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
rose NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
dependently NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
magnitude NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Postprandial NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
estrogen NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
before NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
GH NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
transdermal NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Protein NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
during NN O O
oral NN O O
estrogen NN O I-INT
both NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
antagonizes NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
actions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
may NN O O
aggravate NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
already NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
GHD NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
attenuate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Estrogen NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
in NN O O
GHD NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
should NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
administered NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
nonoral NN O I-OUT
route NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11701672)

Acute NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pegvisomant NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
implications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
in NN O O
GH NN O O
deficiency NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
is NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
GH NN O O
deficiency NN O O
( NN O O
GHD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GHD NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
abdominally NN O O
obese NN O O
and NN O O
display NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Otherwise NN O O
healthy NN O O
abdominally NN O O
obese NN O O
subjects NN O O
have NN O O
low NN O O
GH NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
show NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
nonobese NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
GH NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
pegvisomant NN O I-INT
in NN O O
different NN O O
metabolic NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
GHD NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
GHD NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pegvisomant NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
fasting NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pegvisomant NN O I-INT
under NN O O
normal NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

fed NN O O
, NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
fasting NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
pegvisomant NN O O
alone NN O O
decreased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.15 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.31 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.05 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
and NN O O
0.86 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.23 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.46 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.23 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
pegvisomant NN O O
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.15 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.31 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.07 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
pegvisomant NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O O
of NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
fasting NN O O
. NN O O

Pegvisomant NN O O
alone NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
fasting NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
fasting NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
pegvisomant NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
only NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
pegvisomant NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mmol/liter NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
fasting NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
pegvisomant NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
pegvisomant NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
significantly NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
pegvisomant NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
1.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.07 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
U/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
metabolic NN O O
conditions NN O O
the NN O O
GH NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
pegvisomant NN O O
induces NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
acute NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
metabolic NN O O
changes NN O O
, NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

abdominal NN O I-OUT
obesity NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
that NN O O
develop NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
long-standing NN O O
GHD NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
importance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
GHD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11710599)

Absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
myelitis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nonmetastatic NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
myelitis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
cervical NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
50.6 NN O O
Gy NN O I-INT
given NN O O
via NN O O
1.1 NN O O
Gy NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

fractionation NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HFX NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
77 NN O O
Gy NN O I-INT
given NN O O
in NN O O
70 NN O O
fractions NN O O
of NN O O
1.1 NN O O
Gy NN O O
b.i.d. NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
concurrent NN O O
low-dose NN O O
, NN O O
daily NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Of NN O O
130 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nonmetastatic NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCC NN O I-PAR
H NN O I-PAR
& NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
entered NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
101 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
50.6 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
and NN O O
survived NN O O
> NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-five NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
HFX NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
and NN O O
fifty-six NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
CDDP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
None NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
101 NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
myelitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
potentially NN O I-OUT
contributing NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
myelitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
interfraction NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
concurrent NN O I-OUT
CDDP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Given NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
altered NN O O
fractionated NN O O
regimens NN O O
and NN O O
concurrent NN O O
radio-chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
SCC NN O O
H NN O O
& NN O O
N NN O O
, NN O O
new NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
gain NN O O
better NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
myelitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11746070)

Evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
peer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
case-managed NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
risk-reduction NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
on NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health-promoting NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
homeless NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Investigators NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
risk-reduction NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
on NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
substance NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
sexual NN O O
risk NN O O
behaviors NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
resources NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
325 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
resided NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sober-living NN O I-PAR
shelters NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
308 NN O I-PAR
intimate NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
by NN O O
shelter NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
peer-mentored NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
nurse NN O I-OUT
case-managed NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
risk-reduction NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
resources NN O I-OUT
except NN O O
for NN O O
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
peer-mentored NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
case-managed NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
in NN O O
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
noninjection NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
partners NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
unprotected NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
633 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
approach NN O O
by NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
professionals NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
effectively NN O O
modify NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
homeless NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
important NN O O
economic NN O O
and NN O O
policy NN O O
implications NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O O
programs NN O O
that NN O O
address NN O O
psychological NN O O
vulnerabilities NN O O
of NN O O
impoverished NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
needs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
studied NN O O
further NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11789002)

[ NN O I-INT
Statins NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
occlusive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
extremities NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
manifested NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
extremities NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
lipid NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
i.e NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
claudication NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
statins NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
efficiency NN O O
deteriorated NN O O
further NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
extremities NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
dyslipidaemia NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
proved NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
i.e NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
it NN O I-OUT
retarded NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
authors NN O O
recorded NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
prooxidation NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
followed NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
dynamics NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
impaired NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
spectrum NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
admit NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
part NN O O
played NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
pleiotropic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
statins NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11804430)

Improved NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
PCOS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
CYP17a NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CYP17a NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ketoconazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on NN O O
clomiphene NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
in NN O O
PCOS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Prospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
setup NN O O
at NN O O
Alexandria NN O I-PAR
IVF/ICSI NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ninety-seven NN O I-PAR
insulin-resistant NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
ovulation NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
random NN O O
number NN O O
table NN O O
, NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
49 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
ketoconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
till NN O O
correction NN O O
of NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
48 NN O O
) NN O O
receiving NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
ketoconazole NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clomiphene NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
monofollicular NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
insulin/glucose NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
ketoconazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
monofollicular NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
marked NN O I-OUT
antiestrogenic NN O I-OUT
manifestations NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clomiphene NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
less NN O O
hyperinsulinaemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Ketoconazole NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-OUT
responsivenss NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PCOS NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
attenuated NN O O
its NN O O
untoward NN O I-OUT
biological NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11815957)

Liposome-encapsulated NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
as NN O O
first-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
toxicity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
liposome-encapsulated NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
TLC NN O I-INT
D-99 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Myocet NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Elan NN O I-INT
Pharmaceuticals NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Princeton NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
NJ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O O
breast NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
( NN O O
MBC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
TLC NN O I-INT
D-99 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
or NN O O
unacceptable NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

Responses NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
World NN O O
Health NN O O
Organization NN O O
criteria NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
safety NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
cardiotoxicity NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O O
function NN O O
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
by NN O O
multiple-gated NN O I-INT
radionuclide NN O I-INT
cardioangiography NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
( NN O O
LVEF NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
scored NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
central NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
LVEF NN O I-PAR
declined NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
EF NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
relevant NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
balanced NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
progesterone NN O O
receptor NN O O
positive NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
doxorubicin-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Protocol-defined NN O I-OUT
cardiotoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
TLC NN O O
D-99 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
2 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
CHF NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
9 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
CHF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
doxorubicin NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiotoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
785 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
TLC NN O I-INT
D-99 NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
570 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
3.56 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.9 NN O O
months NN O O
on NN O O
TLC NN O O
D-99 NN O O
versus NN O O
3.1 NN O O
months NN O O
on NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16 NN O O
versus NN O O
20 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
trend NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
commonly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
doxorubicin NN O O
, NN O O
appeared NN O O
less NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
TLC NN O O
D-99 NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
palmar-plantar NN O I-OUT
erythrodysesthesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Grade NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
liposomal NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Single-agent NN O O
TLC NN O I-INT
D-99 NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
less NN O O
cardiotoxicity NN O O
than NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
providing NN O O
comparable NN O O
antitumor NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11819768)

Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
current NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Austrain NN O I-PAR
Czech NN O I-PAR
German NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
PRISMA NN O O
Study NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
alone NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
fatal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
multinational NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Men NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
phenotype NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
gastritis NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
7 NN O O
day NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
X NN O I-INT
20mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
X NN O I-INT
500mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
X NN O I-INT
1g NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
X NN O I-INT
20mg NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Follow-up NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
is NN O O
scheduled NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thereafter NN O O
in NN O O
one-year NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Predefined NN O O
study NN O O
endpoints NN O O
are NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
precancerous NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
dysplasia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
cancers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Since NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1524 NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
279 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
corpus NN O I-PAR
dominant NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
gastritis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
167 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
58.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
86 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
infection NN O O
was NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
88.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Currently NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O O
follow-up NN O O
time NN O O
is NN O O
3046 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
253.38 NN O O
patient NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
16 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

So NN O O
far NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
precancerous NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Three NN O O
( NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
reached NN O O
study NN O I-OUT
endpoints NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Among NN O O
men NN O O
between NN O O
55 NN O O
and NN O O
65 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
phenotype NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
gastritis NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
than NN O O
expected NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
and NN O O
continuing NN O O
recruitment NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
fulfil NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11828556)

Carpal NN O O
tunnel NN O O
release NN O O
by NN O O
limited NN O I-INT
palmar NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O I-INT
palmar NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
carpal NN O I-INT
tunnel NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CTR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
considered NN O O
the NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
carpal NN O I-PAR
tunnel NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
individually NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
limited NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
CTR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=36 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
CTR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=36 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
incision NN O I-PAR
parallel NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thenar NN O I-PAR
crease NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
made NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
length NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
operating NN O I-PAR
microscope NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-PAR
transillumination NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Skin NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
began NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
border NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
carpal NN O I-PAR
ligament NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
longitudinal NN O I-PAR
crease NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
palm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
crossed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
base NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
palm NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
zigzag NN O I-PAR
fashion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
about NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
examined NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
tenderness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
esthetic NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Distal NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
conduction NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrophysiological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intervals NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O O
2-15 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O O
2-21 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
intervals NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O O
5-45 NN O O
vs NN O O
median NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O O
10-60 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Scar/pillar NN O I-OUT
tenderness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
esthetic NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Limited NN O I-INT
palmar NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
CTR NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
as NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
CTR NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O O
postoperative NN O O
recovery NN O O
and NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11836674)

Multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
mesothelioma NN O I-PAR
proposed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
British NN O O
Thoracic NN O O
Society NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
British NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
. NN O O

Malignant NN O I-PAR
mesothelioma NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
almost NN O O
invariably NN O O
fatal NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
rising NN O O
rapidly NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
generally NN O O
accepted NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
According NN O O
to NN O O
current NN O O
British NN O O
Thoracic NN O O
Society NN O O
( NN O O
BTS NN O O
) NN O O
guidelines NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
active NN O I-INT
symptom NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ASC NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
involving NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
assessments NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
psychological NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
problems NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
appropriate NN O I-INT
action NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
rapid NN O I-INT
involvement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
specialists NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
parallel NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
many NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
tumor NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
anticancer NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
have NN O O
studied NN O O
palliation NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
whether NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
prolongs NN O O
survival NN O O
or NN O O
provides NN O O
clinically NN O O
worthwhile NN O O
palliation NN O O
with NN O O
acceptable NN O O
toxicity NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
ASC NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
plan NN O O
to NN O O
conduct NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
ASC NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ASC NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MVP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ASC NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
vinorelbine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
; NN O O
Navelbine NN O O
, NN O O
Pierre NN O O
Fabre NN O O
Oncology NN O O
, NN O O
Winchester NN O O
, NN O O
UK NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
chose NN O O
these NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
regimens NN O O
because NN O O
they NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
good NN O O
symptom NN O O
control NN O O
as NN O O
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
palliation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrence/progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
are NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
suitability NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
standard NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
instruments NN O O
in NN O O
mesothelioma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
will NN O O
help NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
decide NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
details NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11860536)

Laparoscopically NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
abdominal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
transabdominal NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
. NN O O

From NN O O
July NN O O
1996 NN O O
to NN O O
July NN O O
1998 NN O O
, NN O O
61 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Gynaecology NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Royal NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Shore NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Sydney NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LAVH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
salpingo-oophrectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BSO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
minus NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LPLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-PAR
laparotomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
BSO NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-PAR
minus NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
PLA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcomes NN O O
studied NN O O
were NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
hands NN O O
of NN O O
experienced NN O O
operators NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
procedure NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
shorter NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Proper NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
vital NN O O
step NN O O
in NN O O
achieving NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
goals NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11890175)

Supervisor NN O I-PAR
tolerance-responsiveness NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
substance NN O O
abuse NN O O
and NN O O
workplace NN O O
prevention NN O O
training NN O O
: NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive NN O O
mapping NN O O
tool NN O O
. NN O O

Supervisor NN O I-INT
tolerance-responsiveness NN O I-INT
, NN O O
referring NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
attitudes NN O O
and NN O O
behaviors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
ignoring NN O O
or NN O O
taking NN O O
proactive NN O O
steps NN O O
with NN O O
troubled NN O I-PAR
employees NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
examine NN O O
, NN O O
understand NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
supervisor NN O I-PAR
responsiveness NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
employee NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
examined NN O O
supervisor NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
coworker NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
ways NN O O
of NN O O
interfacing NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Employee NN O I-INT
Assistance NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
workplaces NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
244 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
107 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
surveys NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
engaging NN O O
supervisors NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dialogue NN O O
about NN O O
tolerance NN O O
might NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
willingness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EAP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
field NN O O
experiment NN O O
that NN O O
assessed NN O O
a NN O O
team-oriented NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
training NN O O
adopted NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive NN O O
mapping NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
improve NN O O
supervisor NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
. NN O O

Supervisors NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
on NN O O
several NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

likely NN O O
to NN O O
contact NN O O
the NN O O
EAP NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
supervisors NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
didactic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
informational NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
no-training NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Trained NN O I-PAR
supervisors NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
showed NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O I-OUT
help-seeking NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Procedures NN O O
and NN O O
maps NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
mapping NN O O
activity NN O O
( NN O O
two-stage NN O O
conversational NN O O
mapping NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
while NN O O
supervisor NN O O
tolerance NN O O
of NN O O
coworker NN O O
substance NN O O
use NN O O
inhibits NN O O
EAP NN O O
utilization NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
this NN O O
tolerance NN O O
using NN O O
team-oriented NN O O
prevention NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
work-site NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11915576)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
hormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
adverse NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HRT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
premenstrual NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PMS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
included NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
northern NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
women NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
continuously NN O O
during NN O O
five NN O O
28-day NN O O
cycles NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
MPA NN O O
sequentially NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
days NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
noted NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
MPA NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
PMS NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
without NN O O
responded NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
negative NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
MPA NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
PMS NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
MPA NN O O
enhanced NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
With NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
MPA NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O O
HRT NN O O
is NN O O
unwarranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11931782)

Safety NN O O
of NN O O
intravitreous NN O O
fomivirsen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O I-OUT
retinitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
report NN O O
data NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
intravitreous NN O O
fomivirsen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CMV NN O O
) NN O O
retinitis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Critical NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
three NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
supplemental NN O O
information NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
expanded NN O O
drug NN O O
access NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Adverse NN O O
ocular NN O O
events NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
clinician NN O O
investigators NN O O
were NN O O
listed NN O O
using NN O O
terms NN O O
modified NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
COSTART NN O O
dictionary NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
165-microg/injection NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
330-microg/injection NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
153 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
two NN O O
330-microg/injection NN O O
dose NN O O
schedules NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
intensity NN O O
were NN O O
pooled NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
incidence NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
event NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
events/patient-year NN O O
( NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
total NN O O
cumulative NN O O
reported NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
events NN O O
that NN O O
could NN O O
recur NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
events/person-year NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
events NN O O
: NN O O
retinal NN O O
detachment NN O O
, NN O O
cataract NN O O
, NN O O
visual NN O O
field NN O O
disturbance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
retinal NN O O
pigment NN O O
epitheliopathy NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
reviewed NN O O
treatments NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
anterior NN O O
chamber NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
intraocular NN O O
pressure NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
report NN O O
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O O
that NN O O
developed NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
key NN O O
events NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Incidence NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
schedule NN O O
dependent NN O O
( NN O O
165 NN O O
microg/injection NN O O
, NN O O
4.06 NN O O
events/patient-year NN O O
; NN O O
330 NN O O
microg/injection NN O O
, NN O O
6.58 NN O O
events/patient-year NN O O
[ NN O O
less NN O O
intense NN O O
regimen NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
8.35 NN O O
events/patient-year NN O O
[ NN O O
more NN O O
intense NN O O
regimen NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
anterior NN O I-OUT
chamber NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Intravitreous NN O O
fomivirsen NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
acceptable NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
schedules NN O O
used NN O O
clinically NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
managed NN O O
successfully NN O O
with NN O O
medical NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11956614)

Endometrial NN O I-PAR
cytodiagnosis NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
softcyte NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
a NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
endocyte NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
new NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cytologic NN O O
sampling NN O O
device NN O O
, NN O O
softcyte NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
cytological NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
endocyte NN O I-INT
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
manipulability NN O O
, NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cellular NN O O
findings NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
quantity NN O O
of NN O O
cells NN O O
collected NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
cell NN O O
freshness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cellular NN O O
clumping NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
315 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
premenopause NN O I-PAR
251 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
postmenopause NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-INT
cytological NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
softcyte NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
endocyte NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
softcyte NN O I-INT
we NN O O
compared NN O O
it NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
endocyte NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Endometrial NN O O
cytology NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
softcyte NN O I-INT
or NN O O
an NN O O
endocyte NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
high NN O O
correct NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
instruments NN O O
are NN O O
valuable NN O O
as NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cytologic NN O O
sample NN O O
devices NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
softcyte NN O O
causes NN O O
only NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
introduction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
collection NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
quantity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
harvested NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
softcyte NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
cytologic NN O O
sampling NN O O
device NN O O
in NN O O
screening NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11965204)

Diet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tobacco NN O O
use NN O O
: NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
diabetic NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
The NN O O
Diabetic NN O O
Control NN O O
and NN O O
Complications NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
DCCT NN O O
) NN O O
researchers NN O O
kept NN O O
careful NN O O
records NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
food NN O O
consumption NN O O
and NN O O
tobacco NN O O
using NN O O
habits NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
habits NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Analyze NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
tobacco NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
macro NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
micronutrients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Referral NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Using NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O I-INT
sets NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
DCCT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
analyzed NN O O
the NN O O
strengths NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
macronutrient NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
A1c NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
correlations NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nutrient NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Cigarette NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cigar NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pipe NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
interval NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
caloric NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
males NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
females NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O I-OUT
users NN O I-OUT
consumed NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Female NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
higher NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterols NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL/HDL NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterols NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
determinations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O O
exceeded NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
nonsmoking NN O O
males NN O O
. NN O O

HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterols NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nutrient NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
former NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
resembled NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
nonusers NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
current NN O O
users NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
association NN O O
exists NN O O
between NN O O
smoking NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
degenerative NN O I-OUT
diseases NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
strong NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O O
with NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
stroke NN O O
, NN O O
vasculopathies NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
various NN O O
malignancies NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
diet NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
higher NN O O
fat NN O O
diet NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O O
users NN O O
probably NN O O
accounts NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
and NN O O
hyperlipidemia NN O O
. NN O O

Tobacco NN O O
users NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
informed NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tobacco NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
association NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12031821)

Improved NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
after NN O O
1-year NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
HMG NN O I-INT
CoA NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
haemostatic NN O O
variables NN O O
reflecting NN O O
procoagulant NN O O
and NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
might NN O O
beneficially NN O O
modify NN O O
these NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=28 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=30 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
starting NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
12-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
determinations NN O O
of NN O O
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
fragment NN O I-OUT
1+2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F1+2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tPA NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
type-1 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
tPA NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.024 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tPA NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
measured NN O O
coagulation NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Separately NN O O
examined NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O O
profile NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
borderline NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tPA NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.083 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
borderline NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tPA NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.069 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
the NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
F1+2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
P=.038 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
changes NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
serum NN O O
D-dimer NN O O
, NN O O
P=.046 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
pronounced NN O O
with NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
promote NN O O
a NN O O
profibrinolytic NN O O
profile NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
rendered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
CHD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12055323)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
interviewer NN O O
's NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
on NN O O
underreporting NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
provide NN O O
more NN O O
accurate NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
by NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
in-person NN O I-INT
recall NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
obese NN O I-INT
interviewer NN O I-INT
, NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in-person NN O I-INT
recall NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lean NN O I-INT
interviewer NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
recall NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
unknown NN O I-INT
interviewer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESEARCH NN O O
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
PROCEDURES NN O O
Eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
one NN O O
telephone-administered NN O I-INT
multiple-pass NN O I-INT
24-hour NN O I-INT
recall NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MP24R NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
unknown NN O I-INT
interviewer NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
in-person NN O I-INT
MP24R NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lean NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
obese NN O I-INT
interviewer NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
gather NN O I-INT
reported NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
rEI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Basal NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Deltrac NN O O
monitor NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EEPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Caltrac NN O I-INT
accelerometer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
estimated NN O O
energy NN O O
expenditure NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
: NN O O
estTEE NN O O
= NN O O
( NN O O
BMR NN O O
+ NN O O
EEPA NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
1.10 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
in-person NN O O
interview NN O O
modes NN O O
for NN O O
subject NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
, NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
fat NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
energy NN O O
expenditure NN O O
, NN O O
rEI NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
misreporting NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

In-person NN O O
recall NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O O
recalls NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
in-person NN O O
and NN O O
telephone NN O O
recalls NN O O
for NN O O
rEI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
misreporting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
estimated NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O O
recalls NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
( NN O O
lean NN O O
and NN O O
obese NN O O
modes NN O O
) NN O O
in-person NN O O
recalls NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
interviewer NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
self-reported NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
during NN O O
an NN O O
in-person NN O O
MP24R NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
telephone NN O O
recall NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
in-person NN O O
recalls NN O O
. NN O O

Underreporting NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
widespread NN O O
problem NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
modes NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12056851)

Clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
WOMAC NN O O
3.0 NN O O
OA NN O O
Index NN O O
in NN O O
numeric NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
format NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
computerized NN O I-INT
touch NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Western NN O O
Ontario NN O O
and NN O O
McMaster NN O O
Universities NN O O
( NN O O
WOMAC NN O O
) NN O O
Osteoarthritis NN O O
Index NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
described NN O O
self-administered NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
covering NN O O
three NN O O
domains NN O O
: NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
validated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
paper-based NN O O
format NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
validate NN O O
the NN O O
WOMAC NN O O
3.0 NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
numerical NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
computerized NN O O
touch NN O O
screen NN O O
format NN O O
allowing NN O O
immediate NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
computed NN O O
version NN O O
cartoons NN O O
, NN O O
written NN O O
and NN O O
audio NN O O
instruments NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
facilitate NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
demographically NN O I-PAR
balanced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
radiographically NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
classical NN O I-INT
paper NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
WOMAC NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
paper NN O O
format NN O O
or NN O O
computerized NN O O
format NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
balance NN O O
possible NN O O
order NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
intra-class NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficients NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.915 NN O O
, NN O O
0.745 NN O O
and NN O O
0.940 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Spearman NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficients NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.88 NN O O
, NN O O
0.77 NN O O
and NN O O
0.87 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
computerized NN O O
WOMAC NN O O
OA NN O O
index NN O O
3.0 NN O O
is NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
paper NN O O
WOMAC NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
dimensions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
would NN O O
allow NN O O
physicians NN O O
to NN O O
get NN O O
an NN O O
immediate NN O O
result NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
present NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
exam NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12074271)

Double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
aprindine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
preventive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aprindine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
converted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
aprindine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.25 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
outpatient NN O O
basis NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
141 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
aprindine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
digoxin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O I-OUT
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
remaining NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
aprindine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
29.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
21.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
remaining NN O O
in NN O O
SR NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
freedom NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
prevalent NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
aprindine NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0414 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
digoxin NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
aprindine NN O O
nor NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
preventing NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
later NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
aprindine NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12085177)

Marimastat NN O I-INT
as NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
matrix NN O I-INT
metalloproteinase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
marimastat NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
prolong NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-resectable NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gastro-oesophageal NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
histological NN O I-PAR
proof NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5-fluorouracil-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
marimastat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
as NN O O
long NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
tolerable NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
the NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
protocol-defined NN O O
study NN O O
completion NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
arm NN O O
) NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
marimastat NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.07 NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio=1.23 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.98-1.55 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.024 NN O O
, NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio=1.27 NN O O
( NN O O
1.03-1.57 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
138 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
160 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
marimastat NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
2-year NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
identified NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
completion NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pre-defined NN O I-PAR
sub-group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
123 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.045 NN O O
, NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio=1.53 NN O O
( NN O O
1.00-2.34 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
benefit NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
additional NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.006 NN O O
, NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio=1.68 NN O O
( NN O O
1.16-2.44 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
2-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
marimastat NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.009 NN O O
, NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio=1.32 NN O O
( NN O O
1.07-1.63 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Marimastat NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Events NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anaemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
jaundice NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
demonstrations NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
matrix NN O O
metalloproteinase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
greatest NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
further NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
marimastat NN O I-INT
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12108616)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
( NN O O
GI NN O O
) NN O O
hormone NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism/pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
diarrhea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism/PDD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
GI NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
diarrhea NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
aberrant NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
when NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
GI NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
improvement NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism/PDD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
diarrhea NN O I-PAR
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
subtype NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism/PDD NN O O
who NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12108617)

Double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
aberrant NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secretin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
spectrum NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
empirical NN O O
support NN O O
is NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
aberrant NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
teacher NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
reliable NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
replication NN O O
series NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
parent NN O O
and NN O O
teacher NN O O
report NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
occurred NN O O
either NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
or NN O O
reflected NN O O
deterioration NN O O
subsequent NN O O
to NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated-measures NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12139152)

Oral NN O O
desensitization NN O O
in NN O O
papular NN O I-PAR
urticaria NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Papular NN O I-PAR
urticaria NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
commonest NN O O
skin NN O O
ailments NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Induced NN O O
specific NN O O
desensitization NN O O
to NN O O
insect NN O O
bites NN O O
is NN O O
theoretically NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
PU NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
prepared NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
insect NN O I-INT
saliva NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
stable NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
solvent NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Vaccine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
effectiveness NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
by NN O O
counting NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
PU NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IgE NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
oral NN O O
vaccine NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
immunological NN O O
variables NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
vaccine NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
suspected NN O O
, NN O O
larger NN O O
study NN O O
samples NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
strengthen NN O O
our NN O O
conclusion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12143780)

Fusion NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
slightly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
non-surgical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
non-specific NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12151468)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Atypical NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
block NN O O
postsynaptic NN O O
dopamine NN O O
and NN O O
serotonin NN O O
receptors NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
traditional NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
medications NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
serious NN O O
behavioral NN O O
disturbances NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
atypical NN O I-INT
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
agents NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
are NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
multisite NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
score NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Irritability NN O O
subscale NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Checklist NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rating NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Global NN O O
Impressions NN O O
- NN O O
Improvement NN O O
( NN O O
CGI-I NN O O
) NN O O
scale NN O O
at NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
+/-SD NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8.8+/-2.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0.5 NN O O
to NN O O
3.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
56.9 NN O O
percent NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Irritability NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
14.1 NN O O
percent NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
a NN O O
25 NN O O
percent NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Irritability NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
rating NN O O
of NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
or NN O O
very NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
69 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
34 NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
response NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
52 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2.7+/-2.9 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.8+/-2.2 NN O O
kg NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drooling NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
comparison NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
two NN O O
thirds NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O O
at NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
tantrums NN O O
, NN O O
aggression NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
self-injurious NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
short NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
limits NN O O
inferences NN O O
about NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
tardive NN O O
dyskinesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12168688)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Impaired NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
imaginative NN O O
skills NN O O
characterize NN O O
autistic NN O O
syndromes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
these NN O O
syndromes NN O O
urinary NN O O
peptide NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
, NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
gluten NN O O
, NN O O
gliadin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
casein NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
reflect NN O O
processes NN O O
with NN O O
opioid NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
gluten NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
casein-free NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
peptide NN O I-PAR
abnormalities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
diet NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Observations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
done NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
on NN O O
diet NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12169964)

Primary NN O I-INT
deep NN O I-INT
sclerectomy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
deep NN O I-INT
sclerectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
prospectively NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
primary NN O O
deep NN O O
sclerectomy NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
mitomycin NN O O
C NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pseudoexfoliative NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
deep NN O I-PAR
sclerectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
consecutively NN O O
and NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
sclerectomy NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
deep NN O I-INT
sclerectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DSMMC NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg/mL NN O O
for NN O O
2.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
superficial NN O O
scleral NN O O
flap NN O O
formation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
7.13 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
or NN O O
27.59 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DS NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
11.68 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
or NN O O
42.25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DSMMC NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
DSMMC NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
complete NN O O
( NN O O
IOP NN O O
< NN O O
22 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
without NN O O
medication NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
qualified NN O O
( NN O O
IOP NN O O
< NN O O
22 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
medication NN O O
) NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
were NN O O
42.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
72.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DS NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DSMMC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
qualified NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
DSMMC NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DS NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
complications NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
choroidal NN O I-OUT
detachment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyphema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
hemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
detachment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Descemet NN O I-OUT
membrane NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
eye NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DSMMC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
mitomycin NN O O
C NN O O
during NN O O
deep NN O O
sclerectomy NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
IOP NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12176916)

Cyclosporine NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
P-glycoprotein NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
blast NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Chronic NN O O
myeloid NN O O
leukemia NN O O
blast NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
CML-BP NN O O
) NN O O
cells NN O O
commonly NN O O
express NN O O
the NN O O
multidrug NN O O
transporter NN O O
, NN O O
P-glycoprotein NN O O
( NN O O
Pgp NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
Pgp NN O O
inhibition NN O O
improves NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
CML-BP NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Southwest NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
benefit NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Pgp NN O I-INT
modulator NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Seventy-three NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cytarabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
infusional NN O I-INT
daunorubicin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
CsA NN O O
yielded NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
restored NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CR/CP NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
vs NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blast NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Pgp NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
LRP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
common NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
Pgp NN O O
adversely NN O O
impacted NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CR/CP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
Pgp NN O O
has NN O O
prognostic NN O O
relevance NN O O
in NN O O
CML-BP NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
Pgp NN O O
function NN O O
with NN O O
CsA NN O O
as NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
ineffective NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12182253)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Because NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
enhanced NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
faster NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
formulations NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
arginate NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
commercially NN O O
available NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
repeated-dose NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
phase NN O O
followed NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
traditional NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
descriptor NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
2 NN O O
stopwatches NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achievement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
498 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
219 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
279 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
21.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
moderate NN O O
in NN O O
388 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
in NN O O
110 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Meaningful NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reached NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
minutes NN O O
with NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
52 NN O O
and NN O O
44 NN O O
minutes NN O O
with NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
meaningful NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
77.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
83.7 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
61.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
63.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
39.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
arginate NN O O
and NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
meaningful NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
from NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
through NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
arginate NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
from NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
through NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
meaningful NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
from NN O O
45 NN O O
minutes NN O O
through NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
; NN O O
with NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
200 NN O O
mg. NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
interval NN O O
was NN O O
from NN O O
I NN O O
through NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
hour NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
similar NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
preparations NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
remedication NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
, NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
4.0 NN O O
to NN O O
5.2 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse-event NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
active NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
experiencing NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
surgical NN O O
extraction NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
impacted NN O O
third NN O O
molar NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
16 NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
minutes NN O O
' NN O O
faster NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
meaningful NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
with NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
2 NN O O
formulations NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12199005)

Mandibular NN O I-INT
advancement NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
obstructive NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
apnoea NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
snoring NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
mandibular NN O I-INT
advancement NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MAS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
obstructive NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
apnoea NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OSAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
MAS NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
OSAS NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
polysomnography NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MAS NN O I-INT
use NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
half NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
night NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
snoring NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OSAS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MAS NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
disturbance NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RDI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
22.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.8 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
events NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
hour NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
16.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
21.4/hr NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
supine NN O I-OUT
RDI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
30.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
23.8/hr NN O O
to NN O O
18.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22.1/hr NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
arousal NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
25.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18.9/hr NN O O
to NN O O
19.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.2/hr NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
snoring NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
52.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.1 NN O O
to NN O O
50.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.7 NN O O
dB NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
snore NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
polysomnographic NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
MAS NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
completely NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
four NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
partially NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ten NN O O
( NN O O
52.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
26.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
6.5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
2-48 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
perceived NN O O
as NN O O
beneficial NN O O
by NN O O
ten NN O O
of NN O O
eleven NN O O
partners NN O O
. NN O O

Fifteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
9 NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
device NN O O
every NN O O
night NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
device NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
three NN O O
nights NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MAS NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
OSAS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
snoring NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
difficulty NN O O
tolerating NN O O
and NN O O
regularly NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
device NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12201937)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
diuresis NN O O
on NN O O
extracorporeal NN O O
shockwave NN O O
lithotripsy NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ureteric NN O I-PAR
calculi NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
diuresis NN O I-INT
during NN O O
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
shockwave NN O I-INT
lithotripsy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESWL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ureteric NN O I-PAR
calculi NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
stone NN O O
fragmentation NN O O
and NN O O
clearance NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ureteric NN O I-PAR
calculi NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
ESWL NN O I-INT
using NN O O
Siemens NN O I-INT
Lithostar NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
machine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
ESWL NN O I-INT
and NN O O
included NN O O
54 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
ESWL NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
diuresis NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ESWL NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Shock NN O O
waves NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
shocks/minute NN O O
with NN O O
energy NN O O
starting NN O O
from NN O O
10 NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
KV NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
ESWL NN O O
session NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
belonging NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

infusion NN O O
of NN O O
500 NN O O
ml NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O O
containing NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
furosemide NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
diuretic NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
stone NN O I-OUT
fragmentation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sessions NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
stone NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.92 NN O O
and NN O O
1.5 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shocks NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
stone NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6295 NN O O
and NN O O
5300 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Stone NN O I-OUT
fragmentation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
47/54 NN O O
( NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
50/52 NN O O
( NN O O
96.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
stone NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
47/54 NN O O
( NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
48/52 NN O O
( NN O O
92.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
stone NN O O
location NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
upper NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
middle NN O I-OUT
ureteric NN O I-OUT
calculi NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
for NN O O
distal NN O O
ureteric NN O O
stones NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
diuresis NN O O
during NN O O
ESWL NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ESWL NN O I-OUT
sessions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
shocks NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
stone NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
ESWL NN O O
: NN O O
1.38 NN O O
and NN O O
4950 NN O O
for NN O O
ESWL NN O O
with NN O O
diuresis NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
2.9 NN O O
and NN O O
8544 NN O O
for NN O O
standard NN O O
ESWL NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
stone NN O I-OUT
fragmentation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3-month NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
clearly NN O O
higher NN O O
: NN O O
93.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
87.5 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
for NN O O
ESWL NN O O
with NN O O
diuresis NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
70.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
fragmentation NN O O
and NN O O
clearance NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
ESWL NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Diuresis NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
, NN O O
inexpensive NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
ESWL NN O O
of NN O O
ureteric NN O O
stones NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
markedly NN O O
improves NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
ESWL NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
distal NN O O
ureteric NN O O
stones NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
ESWL NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12243889)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
canine NN O I-PAR
parvoviral NN O O
enteritis NN O O
with NN O O
interferon-omega NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
challenge NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Canine NN O I-PAR
parvoviral NN O I-PAR
enteritis NN O I-PAR
continues NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
significant NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
worldwide NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
efficacious NN O O
antiviral NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
are NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
feline NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
omega NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
preparation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
parvoviral NN O I-PAR
enteritis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
challenge NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
beagle NN O I-PAR
pups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8-9 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O O
signs NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
hematologic NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

Fourteen NN O I-PAR
animals NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
inoculated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
virulent NN O I-INT
canine NN O I-INT
parvovirus NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-PAR
animals NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
thereby NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
two NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
IFN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
equal NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IFN NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
daily NN O O
intravenous NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
rFeIFN-omega NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
MU/kg NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
daily NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
without NN O O
IFN NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
animals NN O O
received NN O O
individual NN O O
supportive NN O O
treatment NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
adjusted NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
electrolyte NN O O
solution NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
five NN O O
dogs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
developed NN O O
fulminating NN O I-OUT
enteritis NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
typical NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
died NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
post-inoculation NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
IFN-treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
animal NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
four NN O O
dogs NN O O
survived NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
challenge NN O O
and NN O O
gradually NN O O
recovered NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
data NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
rFeIFN-omega NN O I-INT
can NN O O
exert NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
parvoviral NN O I-PAR
enteritis NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
improving NN O O
clinical NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
reducing NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12356631)

7-hexanoyltaxol-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
neointimal NN O O
growth NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Study NN O O
to NN O O
COmpare NN O O
REstenosis NN O O
rate NN O O
between NN O O
QueST NN O O
and NN O O
QuaDS-QP2 NN O O
( NN O O
SCORE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
neointimal NN O O
tissue NN O O
growth NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
preliminary NN O O
human NN O O
feasibility NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
stent-based NN O I-INT
polymer NN O I-INT
sleeve NN O I-INT
delivering NN O I-INT
7-hexanoyltaxol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
Study NN O O
to NN O O
COmpare NN O O
REstenosis NN O O
rate NN O O
between NN O O
QueST NN O O
and NN O O
QuaDS-QP2 NN O O
( NN O O
SCORE NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
7-hexanoyltaxol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QP2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-eluting NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
qDES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bare NN O I-INT
metal NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
novo NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
substudy NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
expansion NN O I-OUT
property NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
neointimal NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
qDES NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
BMS NN O I-INT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
( NN O O
IVUS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
122 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
qDES NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
BMS NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
IVUS NN O O
substudy NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
IVUS NN O O
images NN O O
( NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
blind NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
qDES NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
stent NN O I-OUT
expansion NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
BMS NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
qDES NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
reduced NN O O
neointimal NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
tightest NN O O
cross NN O O
section NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
stented NN O O
segment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
lumen NN O O
in NN O O
qDES NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
BMS NN O O
. NN O O

Unlike NN O O
intracoronary NN O O
brachytherapy NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
edge NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
unhealed NN O I-OUT
dissections NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
stent-vessel NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
malapposition NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
stented NN O O
and NN O O
adjacent NN O O
references NN O O
segments NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Detailed NN O O
IVUS NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
qDES NN O I-INT
had NN O O
comparable NN O O
acute NN O O
mechanical NN O O
and NN O O
superior NN O O
long-term NN O O
biological NN O O
effects NN O O
to NN O O
BMS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
benefits NN O O
and NN O O
limitations NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
technology NN O O
require NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
neointimal NN O O
thickenings NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
local NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
7-hexanoyltaxol NN O I-INT
through NN O O
polymer NN O O
sleeves NN O O
augments NN O O
conventional NN O O
mechanical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12401759)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
intensive NN O O
injection NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
long-standing NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
insulin NN O O
infusion NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
long-standing NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
Dutch NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
reverse NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
HbA NN O O
( NN O O
1c NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
self-reported NN O O
hypoglycemic NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
memory NN O O
meter NN O O
read NN O O
outs NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
self-report NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
As NN O O
the NN O O
drop-out NN O O
rate NN O O
after NN O O
crossover NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
of NN O O
79 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
analyzed NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
crossover NN O O
phase NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.84 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-1.31 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
insulin NN O O
infusion NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Stability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
self-measurement NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
SD NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nine-point NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
profiles NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O O
pump NN O O
group NN O O
by NN O O
29.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
41.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
36.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
patient-week NN O O
was NN O O
0.99 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.11-1.87 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O O
pump NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Short-Form NN O I-OUT
36-Item NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
'general NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
'mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
insulin NN O O
infusion NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
stable NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
and NN O O
0.050 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Continuous NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
improves NN O O
glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12402011)

Preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
palatal NN O I-INT
operations NN O I-INT
for NN O O
sleep-disordered NN O O
breathing NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
palatal NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
sleep-disordered NN O I-PAR
breathing NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SDB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
surgical NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
university NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
SDB NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
conservative NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
identified NN O O
and NN O O
consecutively NN O O
enrolled NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
institutional NN O O
review NN O O
board-approved NN O O
surgical NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
either NN O O
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
palate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RFAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
planned NN O I-INT
3-stage NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
laser-assisted NN O I-INT
uvulopalatoplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LAUP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
stages NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
CO NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Parameters NN O O
assessed NN O O
included NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SDB NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
polysomnography NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
loudness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
snoring NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SNAP NN O I-OUT
recording NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Epworth NN O I-OUT
Sleepiness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
anatomic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
endoscopy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
demographic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
not NN O O
achieving NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
condition NN O O
were NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
attempted NN O I-INT
salvage NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Seventeen NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
RFAP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
LAUP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RFAP NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
snoring NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
failed NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
salvaged NN O O
with NN O O
LAUP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Six NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LAUP NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
snoring NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
failed NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
salvaged NN O O
with NN O O
nasal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O O
patient NN O O
who NN O O
was NN O O
initially NN O O
cured NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
relapse NN O O
after NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
successfully NN O O
salvaged NN O O
with NN O O
RFA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
SDB NN O O
are NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

Preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
protocol NN O O
reveal NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
LAUP NN O I-INT
over NN O O
RFAP NN O I-INT
but NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
discomfort NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12407485)

Lamivudine NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
QD NN O O
versus NN O O
continued NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
with NN O O
stavudine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
protease NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
in NN O O
suppressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
( NN O O
sustained NN O O
virologic NN O O
suppression NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
safety/tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
switch NN O O
to NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
QD NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
continued NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
BID NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
virologically NN O I-PAR
suppressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
RNA NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
400 NN O I-PAR
copies/mL NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lamivudine NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
BID NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
stavudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
indinavir NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nelfinavir NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
Eighty-nine NN O I-PAR
suppressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CD4 NN O I-PAR
counts NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
cells/mm NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
stratified NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
pretrial NN O I-INT
protease NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
PI NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
QD NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
42 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
pretrial NN O I-INT
stavudine/PI NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
virologic NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
: NN O O
exposed NN O O
( NN O O
missing NN O O
= NN O O
failure NN O O
) NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
400 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
QD NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
BID NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
QD NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
BID NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CD4 NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+42 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
QD NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
+22 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
BID NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
experienced NN O O
virologic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
drug-related NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Self-reported NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
virologic NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lamivudine NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
BID NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
stavudine/PI NN O I-INT
can NN O O
maintain NN O O
that NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
continuing NN O O
their NN O O
regimen NN O O
or NN O O
switching NN O O
to NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
QD NN O O
and NN O O
continuing NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
event NN O O
profiles NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
among NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
new NN O O
safety NN O O
concerns NN O O
were NN O O
raised NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12418582)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EDICT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
Seretide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50/250 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
Diskus NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
formoterol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
800 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
concurrently NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
via NN O O
Turbuhaler NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Seretide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
salmeterol/fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Salm/FP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
50/250 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
Diskus NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
formoterol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Form NN O O
; NN O O
12 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Bud NN O O
; NN O O
800 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
concurrently NN O O
( NN O O
Form+Bud NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
Turbuhaler NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
on NN O O
existing NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
on NN O O
current NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000-1600 NN O O
microg/day NN O O
of NN O O
BDP NN O O
or NN O O
equivalent NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Symptomatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
428 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FEV1 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
50-85 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
predicted NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-PAR
reliever NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
run-in NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
Salm/FP NN O O
( NN O O
50/250 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
Diskus NN O O
inhaleror NN O O
Form+Bud NN O O
( NN O O
12+800 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
separate NN O O
Turbuhalers NN O O
. NN O O

Clinic NN O O
, NN O O
diary NN O O
card NN O O
and NN O O
asthma-related NN O O
health-care NN O O
resource NN O O
utilisation NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
morning NN O O
peak NN O O
expiratory NN O O
flow NN O O
( NN O O
PEFam NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Salm/FP NN O O
and NN O O
Form+Bud NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
PEFam NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
evening NN O I-OUT
PEF NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PEFpm NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
amount NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
20 NN O O
L/min NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Salm/FP NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.472 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Form+Bud NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.735 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
0.64 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
three-fold NN O O
lower NN O O
microgram NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Salm/FP NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Salm/FP NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
experienced NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
median NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
symptom-free NN O I-OUT
nights NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nights NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nights NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
awakenings NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
asthma-related NN O I-OUT
health-care NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Salm/FP NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
Form+Bud NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
moderate-to-severe NN O O
asthma NN O O
, NN O O
Salm/FP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50/250 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
convenient NN O O
device NN O O
( NN O O
Diskus NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
approximately NN O O
three-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
microgram NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Bud NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
concurrently NN O O
with NN O O
Form NN O I-INT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
microg NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
PEFam NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
superior NN O O
at NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nights NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
night-time NN O I-OUT
awakenings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Salm/FP NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
costly NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
due NN O O
primarily NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12459663)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
acustimulation NN O O
and NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
established NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
nausea NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
vomiting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
transcutaneous NN O O
electrical NN O O
acupoint NN O O
stimulation NN O O
( NN O O
acustimulation NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
ReliefBand NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
nausea NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
vomiting NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PONV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
obtained NN O O
institutional NN O O
review NN O O
board NN O O
approval NN O O
and NN O O
written NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
, NN O O
268 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo- NN O O
and NN O O
sham-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
metoclopramide NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
droperidol NN O O
, NN O O
0.625 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
PONV NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
units NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
ReliefBand NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
acustimulation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
ReliefBand NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
ReliefBand NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
rescue NN O I-INT
antiemetic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PONV NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
persisted NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
longer NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
initiating NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
blinded NN O O
observer NN O O
recorded NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
emetic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
antiemetics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Postdischarge NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
recovery NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
acustimulation NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
vs.40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
( NN O O
vs. NN O O
acustimulation NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
emetic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Acustimulation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ReliefBand NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
established NN O I-PAR
PONV NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ReliefBand NN O O
device NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
acustimulation NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12462350)

Secretin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sleep NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objectives NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
possible NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
infusions NN O O
on NN O O
sleep-wake NN O O
state NN O O
organization NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
assess NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
feasibility NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
recordings NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
time-lapse NN O I-PAR
videosomnography NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
double NN O I-PAR
blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-control NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multi-center NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
UC NN O O
Irvine NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
IQ NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
UC NN O O
Davis NN O O
trial NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
sleep NN O O
study NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
some NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
observe NN O O
possible NN O O
secretin NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
sleep NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
examine NN O O
sleep NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
UC NN O O
Irvine NN O O
trial NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
Habits NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
diaries NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
UC NN O O
Davis NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
home-recorded NN O I-OUT
time-lapse NN O I-OUT
videosomnography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
both NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
preliminary NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
porcine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
, NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
sleep-wake NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
organization NN O I-OUT
dramatically NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12463729)

Pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
galantamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
after NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
are NN O O
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
together NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
steady-state NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
profile NN O O
after NN O O
coadministration NN O O
of NN O O
galantamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
two-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
drug-drug NN O O
interaction NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
galantamine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
galantamine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
systemic NN O O
exposure NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
active NN O O
moiety NN O O
( NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
9-hydroxyrisperidone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
galantamine NN O I-INT
coadministration NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
about NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
9-hydroxyrisperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
active NN O O
metabolite NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Galantamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
both NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
administered NN O O
either NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
together NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
dose NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
orgalantamine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
when NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
are NN O O
administered NN O O
together NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12505733)

Is NN O O
the NN O O
orientation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
apical NN O I-PAR
defibrillation NN O I-PAR
paddle NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
importance NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
external NN O I-INT
defibrillation NN O I-INT
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Transthoracic NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
factor NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transmyocardial NN O O
current NN O O
during NN O O
external NN O I-INT
defibrillation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Minimising NN O O
TTI NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
chances NN O O
of NN O O
successful NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
external NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
paddles NN O O
are NN O O
rectangular NN O O
in NN O O
shape NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
be NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
transverse NN O O
or NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
orientation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
apical NN O O
paddle NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
transverse NN O O
orientation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
theoretically NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
TTI NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
orientation NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
poorer NN O O
contact NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
lateral NN O O
paddle NN O O
edges NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
TTI NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
apical NN O O
paddle NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
transverse NN O O
and NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
orientation NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
sequential NN O I-PAR
anaesthetised NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
pair NN O O
of NN O O
defibrillator NN O I-INT
paddles NN O I-INT
were NN O O
instrumented NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
paddle NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TTI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
pre-operatively NN O O
at NN O O
end-expiration NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
apical NN O O
paddle NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
and NN O O
transverse NN O O
orientations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sternal NN O O
paddle NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
orientation NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
TTI NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
transverse NN O O
and NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
orientations NN O O
as NN O O
paddle NN O O
force NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

Transverse NN O I-INT
paddle NN O I-INT
orientation NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
TTI NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
orientation NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
paddle NN O O
forces NN O O
below NN O O
12 NN O O
kg NN O O
force NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
orientation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
rectangular NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
paddle NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
TTI NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
orientation NN O O
horizontally NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12511152)

Trials NN O O
and NN O O
tribulations NN O O
: NN O O
current NN O O
challenges NN O O
in NN O O
conducting NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Randomized NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
are NN O O
the NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
therapies NN O O
and NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
such NN O O
require NN O O
strict NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
multiple NN O O
challenges NN O O
in NN O O
conducting NN O O
a NN O O
well-designed NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
article NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
difficulties NN O O
encountered NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
institution NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
reviews NN O O
the NN O O
challenges NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
a NN O O
high-quality NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12538218)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O I-INT
lip NN O I-INT
bite NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
simple NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
Mallampati NN O I-INT
classification NN O I-INT
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
endotracheal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
blinded NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
and NN O O
single NN O O
test NN O O
could NN O O
replace NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O O
Mallampati NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
difficult NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
unaccomplished NN O O
tracheal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
impending NN O I-OUT
hypoxic NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
assessments NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
oropharyngeal NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
according NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
Mallampati NN O I-INT
criteria NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-INT
lip NN O I-INT
bite NN O I-INT
criteria-class NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
incisors NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
bite NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-INT
lip NN O I-INT
above NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
vermilion NN O I-INT
line NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
incisors NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
bite NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-INT
lip NN O I-INT
below NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
vermilion NN O I-INT
line NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
incisors NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
bite NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-INT
lip NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
) NN O O
laryngeal NN O I-INT
view NN O I-INT
grading NN O I-INT
according NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Cormack NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
difficult NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-OUT
lip NN O I-OUT
bite NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
Mallampati NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comparisons NN O O
of NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reveal NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
lip NN O O
bite NN O O
test NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
difficult NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12553591)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
IU/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
equal NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
with NN O O
standardized NN O O
assessments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
secretin NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
secretin NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12567169)

Topical NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
external NN O I-PAR
genital NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perianal NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Genital NN O O
infection NN O O
with NN O O
human NN O O
papillomavirus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
genital NN O O
warts NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
sexually NN O O
transmitted NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

GOAL NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
demographic NN O I-PAR
variables NN O I-PAR
affect NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O I-PAR
genital NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
perianal NN O I-PAR
warts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
immunocompetent NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
applied NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
topically NN O I-INT
to NN O O
external NN O O
genital NN O O
warts NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
until NN O O
wart NN O O
clearance NN O O
or NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
As NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ITT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
54/109 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
imiquimod-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
11/100 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vehicle-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ITT NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
imiquimod-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
females NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
males NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
clearance NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
subgroups NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
variables NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
wart NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
current NN O I-OUT
outbreak NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
previous NN O I-OUT
wart NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tobacco NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
in NN O O
eradicating NN O I-OUT
external NN O I-OUT
genital NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perianal NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Imiquimod NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
external NN O I-OUT
genital NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perianal NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
initial NN O O
wart NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
current NN O O
outbreak NN O O
of NN O O
warts NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
wart NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tobacco NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12569977)

Liposome-entrapped NN O I-INT
D. NN O I-INT
pteronyssinus NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effect NN O O
of NN O O
1-year NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
on NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
bronchial NN O O
hyperresponsiveness NN O O
and NN O O
immediate NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
bronchial NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
allergen NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Allergen NN O O
vaccination NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
mite-allergic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Liposomes NN O O
are NN O O
immunological NN O O
adjuvants NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
act NN O O
as NN O O
allergen NN O O
carriers NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
immunological NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
liposome-entrapped NN O I-INT
D. NN O I-INT
pteronyssinus NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mite NN O I-PAR
monosensitive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
vaccination NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
Der NN O O
p NN O O
1 NN O O
allergen NN O O
were NN O O
constant NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Allergen NN O O
bronchial NN O O
challenge NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
( NN O O
T0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
T12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
allergen NN O O
provocation NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
challenged NN O O
with NN O O
methacholine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Mth NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
until NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
fell NN O O
by NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
and NN O O
sputum NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

Dose-response NN O O
curves NN O O
to NN O O
Mth NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
Mth-PD20 NN O O
( NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
Mth NN O O
that NN O O
induced NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
slope NN O O
( NN O O
Mth-DRS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
plateau NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eosinophil NN O I-OUT
cationic NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intercellular NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecule-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
TI2 NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
higher NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Mth-PD20 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lower NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
Mth-DRS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
presenting NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plateau NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
T12 NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
eosinophils NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
lower NN O O
numbers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
one NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
immediate NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
Mth-DRS NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
the NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
were NN O O
attenuated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Liposome-entrapped NN O O
D. NN O O
Pteronyssinus NN O O
vaccination NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
protects NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
the NN O O
worsening NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
sustained NN O O
mite NN O O
exposure NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
changes NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
allergen NN O O
bronchial NN O O
provocation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12585724)

Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
L-carnosine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
L-Carnosine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dipeptide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
can NN O O
enhance NN O O
frontal NN O O
lobe NN O O
function NN O O
or NN O O
be NN O O
neuroprotective NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
can NN O O
also NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
gamma-aminobutyric NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
GABA NN O O
) NN O O
-homocarnosine NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
possible NN O O
anticonvulsive NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
8-week NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blinded NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
L-carnosine NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
observable NN O O
changes NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Gilliam NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Expressive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Receptive NN O I-OUT
One-Word NN O I-OUT
Picture NN O I-OUT
Vocabulary NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Change NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Children NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
on NN O O
L-carnosine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
children NN O O
showed NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Gilliam NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Socialization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Communication NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Receptive NN O I-OUT
One-Word NN O I-OUT
Picture NN O I-OUT
Vocabulary NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Improved NN O O
trends NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
L-carnosine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
understood NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
neurologic NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
perhaps NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enterorhinal NN O O
or NN O O
temporal NN O O
cortex NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12612897)

Gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
NO-aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NCX-4016 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
proof NN O O
of NN O O
concept NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
NCX-4016 NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide-releasing NN O O
derivative NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O O
with NN O O
antiplatelet NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
NCX-4016 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
mucosa NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
NCX-4016 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
equimolar NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
420 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Upper NN O O
endoscopies NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
gastroduodenal NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
graded NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
predefined NN O I-OUT
scoring NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Basal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
posttreatment NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
arachidonic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
AA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
thromboxane NN O O
( NN O O
TX NN O O
) NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
AA-stimulated NN O O
platelet NN O O
TXB NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
production NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mucosal NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
was NN O O
0.63 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.16 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
11.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.0 NN O O
and NN O O
16.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.6 NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
200 NN O O
and NN O O
420 NN O O
mg NN O O
aspirin NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

NCX-4016 NN O O
was NN O O
virtually NN O O
devoid NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duodenal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duodenal NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1.38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
and NN O O
1.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
vs. NN O O
aspirin NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

NCX-4016 NN O O
inhibited NN O O
AA-induced NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
TXB NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
TXB NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
AA NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
extent NN O O
as NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
vs. NN O O
aspirin NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
proven NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
that NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
NO-donating NN O O
moiety NN O O
to NN O O
aspirin NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
chemical NN O O
entity NN O O
that NN O O
maintains NN O O
cyclooxygenase-1 NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
activity NN O O
while NN O O
nearly NN O O
avoiding NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12616671)

Pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
concurrent NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
donepezil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
sometimes NN O O
uses NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
drugs NN O O
because NN O O
dementia NN O O
is NN O O
frequently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
behavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
are NN O O
both NN O O
metabolized NN O O
through NN O O
cytochrome NN O O
P450 NN O O
2D6 NN O O
and NN O O
3A4 NN O O
, NN O O
raising NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
interactions NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
significant NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
occur NN O O
with NN O O
concomitant NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
three-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
for NN O O
14 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
21-day NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
ratios NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
associated NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
( NN O O
CIs NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
risperidone NN O O
active NN O O
moiety NN O O
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
risperidone NN O O
plus NN O O
9-hydroxyrisperidone NN O O
( NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
110.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
103.7-117.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
donepezil NN O O
( NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
97.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
90.0-103.6 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
125 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
CIs NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
risperidone NN O O
active NN O O
moiety NN O O
( NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
114.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
107.0-122.8 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
donepezil NN O O
( NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
96.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
90.0-102.6 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
differences NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
risperidone NN O O
active NN O O
moiety NN O O
or NN O O
donepezil NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
predominantly NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nervousness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
minor NN O O
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
meaningful NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
between NN O O
risperidone NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
donepezil NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
no NN O O
dosage NN O O
adjustment NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
when NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
are NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimen NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
investigations NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
interactions NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
dementia NN O O
who NN O O
may NN O O
eliminate NN O O
risperidone NN O O
and NN O O
donepezil NN O O
more NN O O
slowly NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
vulnerable NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
drug NN O O
interactions NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
examined NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12629094)

Final NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
girls NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
turner NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
long-term NN O O
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
three NN O O
dosages NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
estrogens NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
short NN O O
stature NN O O
in NN O O
Turner NN O O
syndrome NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
accepted NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
GH NN O O
dosage NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
which NN O O
age NN O O
to NN O O
start NN O O
puberty NN O O
induction NN O O
are NN O O
issues NN O O
of NN O O
debate NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
final NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Turner NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
dose-response NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
combining NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
young NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Girls NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
IU/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
.d NN O O
; NN O O
approximately NN O O
0.045 NN O O
mg/kg/d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
IU/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
.d NN O O
; NN O O
thereafter NN O O
6 NN O O
IU/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
.d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
IU/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
.d NN O O
; NN O O
second NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
IU/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
.d NN O O
; NN O O
thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
IU/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
.d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
yr NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
12.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
yr NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
17beta-estradiol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
8.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.9 NN O O
yr NN O O
, NN O O
FH NN O O
was NN O O
reached NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
15.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 NN O O
yr. NN O O
FH NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
expressed NN O O
in NN O O
centimeters NN O O
or NN O O
SD NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
157.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.5 NN O O
or NN O O
-1.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
162.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.1 NN O O
or NN O O
-0.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
163.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.0 NN O O
or NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C. NN O O
The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
FH NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
centimeters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
corrected NN O O
for NN O O
height NN O O
SD NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
[ NN O O
regression NN O O
coefficient NN O O
, NN O O
4.1 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1.4 NN O O
, NN O O
6.9 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
coefficient NN O O
, NN O O
5.0 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
2.3 NN O O
, NN O O
7.7 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
coefficient NN O O
, NN O O
0.9 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
reached NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-OUT
FH NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
FH NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
-2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

After NN O O
starting NN O O
estrogen NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
changed NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
stable NN O I-OUT
HV NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
without NN O O
affecting NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
age/change NN O O
in NN O O
chronological NN O O
age NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
variables NN O O
contributed NN O O
significantly NN O O
to NN O O
predicting NN O O
FH NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ref NN O O
. NN O O

normal NN O O
girls NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
chronological NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
start NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
HV NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
normalization NN O O
of NN O O
FH NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
most NN O O
girls NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
puberty NN O O
is NN O O
induced NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
pubertal NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
optimal NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
dosage NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
height NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
HV NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12651635)

Single-dose NN O O
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aspirin NN O I-INT
until NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
postoperative NN O O
bleeding NN O O
after NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
given NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aspirin NN O I-INT
until NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
NaCl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
16 NN O O
h. NN O O
Transfusions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
. NN O O

Transfusions NN O O
of NN O O
packed NN O O
red NN O O
cells NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
CPB NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
mean NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
475 NN O O
[ NN O O
274 NN O O
] NN O O
mL NN O O
versus NN O O
713 NN O O
[ NN O O
243 NN O O
] NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
effective NN O O
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Continuation NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
medication NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
may NN O O
increase NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
inhibited NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12666946)

Comparative NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
microbiological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
subgingival NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
application NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
12-months NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
microbiological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
subgingival NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
scaling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
root NN O I-INT
planing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SRP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighty NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
split NN O O
mouth NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
test NN O O
teeth NN O O
received NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
subgingivally NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
teeth NN O O
received NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
microbiological NN O O
examinations NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
and NN O O
52 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Colony NN O O
forming NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
Porphyromonas NN O O
gingivalis NN O O
and NN O O
Prevotella NN O O
intermedia NN O O
/ NN O O
Prevotella NN O O
nigrescens NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
provided NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microbiological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
does NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
provide NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
favour NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
routine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adjunctive NN O I-OUT
metronidazole NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
gel NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O I-OUT
periodontitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12687510)

Validation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
nurse NN O I-PAR
specialist NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
team NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
develop NN O O
and NN O O
validate NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
for NN O O
measuring NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
different NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
complex NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
score NN O O
range NN O O
0-100 NN O O
) NN O O
comprised NN O O
28 NN O O
items NN O O
covering NN O O
11 NN O O
domains NN O O
. NN O O

Together NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
0-100 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
210 NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O O
3 NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
questionnaire NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
returned NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
75 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
83 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Reliability NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
Cronbach NN O O
's NN O O
alpha NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.91 NN O O
. NN O O

Spearman NN O O
's NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficient NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.58 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
72 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
76 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
78 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nurse NN O O
specialist NN O O
, NN O O
inpatient NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
nurse NN O O
specialist NN O O
versus NN O O
day NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
nurse NN O O
specialist NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
domains NN O O
: NN O O
waiting NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
autonomy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non-financial NN O I-OUT
access NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
highly NN O O
satisfied NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
care NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O O
differences NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
organization NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
were NN O O
reflected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
instrument NN O O
for NN O O
measuring NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
complex NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12709801)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
faropenem NN O I-INT
daloxate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
maxillary NN O I-OUT
sinusitis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
multinational NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
sinusitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
oral NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
faropenem NN O I-INT
daloxate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
452 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
valid NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
faropenem NN O I-INT
daloxate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
statistically NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
89.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
88.4 NN O O
% NN O O
-95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI=-5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
+6.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
7-16 NN O O
days NN O O
post-therapy NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
28-35 NN O O
days NN O O
post-therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
continued NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
faropenem NN O I-INT
daloxate NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O O
92.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
94.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-6.8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
+1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
148 NN O O
organisms NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
136 NN O O
microbiologically NN O O
valid NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
30.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
predominant NN O O
causative NN O O
organisms NN O O
were NN O O
Streptococcus NN O O
pneumoniae NN O O
( NN O O
47.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Haemophilus NN O O
influenzae NN O O
( NN O O
30.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
aureus NN O O
( NN O O
14.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Moraxella NN O O
catarrhalis NN O O
( NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bacteriological NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
7-16 NN O O
days NN O O
post-therapy NN O O
evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
91.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
90.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
faropenem NN O I-INT
daloxate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI=-9.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
+9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eradication NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
presumed NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
for NN O O
97.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
96.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
S. NN O O
pneumoniae NN O O
, NN O O
85.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
90.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O O
influenzae NN O O
, NN O O
88.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
90.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
S. NN O O
aureus NN O O
and NN O O
100.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
83.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
M. NN O O
catarrhalis NN O O
in NN O O
faropenem NN O I-INT
daloxate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
faropenem NN O I-INT
daloxate-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
10.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
drug-related NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nausea/vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
faropenem NN O I-INT
daloxate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bacteriologically NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12739123)

The NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
appendicitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
reproductive NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
see NN O O
whether NN O O
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
appendicitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
reproductive NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
what NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
sequelae NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
not NN O O
removing NN O O
an NN O O
appendix NN O O
deemed NN O O
at NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
initial NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
during NN O O
1991-1992 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
inclusion NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
an NN O O
appendicectomy NN O O
for NN O O
suspected NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
appendicitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Following NN O O
consent NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
open NN O I-INT
appendicectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
planned NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
appendicectomy NN O I-INT
only NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
appendix NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
inflamed NN O O
or NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
visualized NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
histology NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
where NN O O
appropriate NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
attempt NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
contact NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O O
appendicectomy NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
with NN O O
another NN O O
abdominal NN O O
condition NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
presentation NN O O
in NN O O
1991-1992 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O O
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
correct NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
appendix NN O O
was NN O O
visualized NN O O
. NN O O

Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
improved NN O O
from NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Laparoscopy NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
added NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
went NN O O
on NN O O
to NN O O
appendicectomy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
problem NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
10-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
from NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
normal-looking NN O O
appendix NN O O
not NN O O
removed NN O O
at NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
appendix NN O O
is NN O O
reliable NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
leave NN O O
a NN O O
normal-looking NN O O
appendix NN O O
at NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
any NN O O
long-term NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12780755)

Short-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone-binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Disturbances NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
regulation NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
encountered NN O O
during NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
and NN O O
truncal NN O O
fat NN O O
accumulation NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
glucocorticoid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomization NN O O
process NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
suitable NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
administered NN O O
steroid NN O O
on NN O O
surrogate NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
adipocyte NN O O
activity NN O O
( NN O O
leptin NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hyperinsulinaemia/insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
( NN O O
SHBG NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
PATIENTS NN O O
Prospective NN O O
study NN O O
over NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6.5 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
part NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
MRC-ALL97/99 NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
ALL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
5.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
2.6-13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SHBG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Glucocorticoid NN O O
administration NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
SHBG NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SHBG NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Dose NN O O
for NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O O
than NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
altering NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Short-term NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O O
treatment NN O O
has NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
BMI NN O O
, NN O O
leptin NN O O
and NN O O
SHBG NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
leptin NN O O
: NN O O
SHBG NN O O
ratio NN O O
increase NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
and NN O O
sensitive NN O O
biochemical NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
metabolic NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
kept NN O O
as NN O O
short NN O O
as NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
possible NN O O
detrimental NN O O
effects NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
adiposity NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12844138)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O O
on NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
counterregulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
unawareness NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hypoglycemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O O
improves NN O O
hypoglycemia NN O O
unawareness NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prolonged NN O O
theophylline NN O O
use NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
emergence NN O O
of NN O O
tolerance NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
prolonged NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O O
retains NN O O
efficacy NN O O
for NN O O
counterregulatory NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypoglycemia NN O I-PAR
unawareness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Experiments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypoglycemia NN O I-PAR
unawareness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
randomly NN O O
scheduled NN O O
15-day NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
periods NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
theophylline NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
final NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hyperinsulinemic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
360 NN O I-INT
pmol NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
hypoglycemic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5.0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3.5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mmol NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
L NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
clamps NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
assess NN O I-INT
counterregulatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Under NN O O
normoglycemic NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
theophylline NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Under NN O O
hypoglycemic NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
theophylline NN O O
enhanced NN O O
responses NN O O
of NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.039 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
exogenous NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.018 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hypoglycemia-induced NN O O
responses NN O O
of NN O O
epinephrine NN O O
, NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cortisol NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
theophylline NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Prolonged NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
hypoglycemia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypoglycemia NN O I-PAR
unawareness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Whether NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
translate NN O O
into NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12844393)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
enterostatin NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
on NN O O
food NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Enterostatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ENT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
inhibit NN O O
food NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
selectively NN O O
inhibit NN O O
fat NN O I-PAR
intake NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
peripheral NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
also NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
ENT NN O I-INT
may NN O O
increase NN O O
thermogenesis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
ENT NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
food NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preference NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high-fat NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
sd NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
24.5 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
sd NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preference NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high-fat NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
ingested NN O I-INT
ENT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
mg/d NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
consuming NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
high-fat NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
d. NN O I-PAR
Eight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
ended NN O O
each NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
36 NN O O
h NN O O
stay NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
respiration NN O O
chamber NN O O
, NN O O
continuing NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Body-weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ENT NN O I-INT
0.8 NN O O
( NN O O
se NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
; NN O O
PLA NN O I-INT
1.3 NN O O
( NN O O
se NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
ENT NN O I-INT
37.1 NN O O
( NN O O
se NN O O
2.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PLA NN O I-INT
35.9 NN O O
( NN O O
se NN O O
3.2 NN O O
) NN O O
MJ NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
macronutrient NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hunger NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hedonic NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
d NN O O
high-fat NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

Energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ENT NN O I-INT
9.6 NN O O
( NN O O
se NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PLA NN O I-INT
9.5 NN O O
( NN O O
se NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
MJ NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sleeping NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resting NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diet-induced NN O I-OUT
thermogenesis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activity-induced NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
RQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
ENT NN O I-INT
0.77 NN O O
( NN O O
se NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PLA NN O I-INT
0.77 NN O O
( NN O O
se NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O O
ENT NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
food NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preference NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high-fat NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
energy NN O O
and NN O O
fat NN O O
balance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12855087)

Virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
distraction NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
chemotherapy-related NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
answer NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
research NN O O
questions NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Is NN O O
virtual NN O O
reality NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
distraction NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
chemotherapy-related NN O O
symptom NN O O
distress NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
Does NN O O
virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
have NN O O
a NN O O
lasting NN O O
effect NN O O
? NN O O
Chemotherapy NN O O
treatments NN O O
are NN O O
intensive NN O O
and NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
endure NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
cope NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy-related NN O O
symptom NN O O
distress NN O O
is NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
distraction NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-INT
head-mounted NN O I-INT
display NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Sony NN O I-INT
PC NN O I-INT
Glasstron NN O I-INT
PLM NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
S700 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
display NN O I-INT
encompassing NN O I-INT
images NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
competing NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Distress NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SDS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Revised NN O I-OUT
Piper NN O I-OUT
Fatigue NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
State NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
measure NN O I-INT
symptom NN O I-INT
distress NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
two NN O O
matched NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
pre-test NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
post-test NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
employed NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
VR NN O I-INT
distraction NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
distraction NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
alternate NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O O
using NN O O
paired NN O O
t-tests NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
SAI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
scores NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
treatments NN O O
when NN O O
participants NN O O
used NN O O
VR NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
SDS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
consistent NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
following NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
thought NN O O
the NN O O
head NN O O
mounted NN O O
device NN O O
was NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
experienced NN O O
no NN O O
cybersickness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
would NN O O
use NN O O
VR NN O O
again NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1289508)

Left NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
mass NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
hypertensives NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
now NN O O
recognized NN O O
that NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
( NN O O
LVH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
often NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
itself NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
coronary NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
many NN O O
agents NN O O
are NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
controlling NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
( NN O O
LV NN O O
) NN O O
mass NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
regression NN O O
on NN O O
diastolic NN O O
relaxation NN O O
and NN O O
contractile NN O O
indices NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
are NN O O
less NN O O
well NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
verapamil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
beta-blocker NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
control NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
regression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O O
hypertensives NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
regression NN O O
on NN O O
resting NN O O
diastolic NN O O
filling NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
and NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
during NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
mild NN O O
upright NN O O
bicycle NN O O
exercise NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-two NN O I-PAR
hypertensives NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
2-D NN O I-INT
echocardiographic NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
LV NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
gated NN O O
blood NN O O
pool NN O O
scan NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
diastolic NN O O
filling NN O O
, NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
and NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
or NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
four-week NN O O
titration NN O O
period NN O O
so NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
160/90 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
controlled NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
chlorthalidone NN O O
was NN O O
added NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O O
whose NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
controlled NN O O
continued NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
that NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
and NN O O
gated NN O O
blood NN O O
pool NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
both NN O O
on NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
subsequent NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-one NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
control NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
verapamil NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
atenolol NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (12895217)

Pre-medication NN O O
with NN O O
pronase NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
artefacts NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
ultrasonography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Gastric NN O O
mucus NN O O
usually NN O O
induces NN O O
artefacts NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
pre-medication NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
proteolytic NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pronase NN O I-INT
, NN O O
before NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
ultrasonography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Out-patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-PAR
ultrasonography NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
pre-medication NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
anti-foam NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dimethylpolysiloxane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
29 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
dimethylpolysiloxane NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
29 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
dimethylpolysiloxane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pronase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
drinks NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
about NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
insertion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
endoscope NN O O
, NN O O
endoscopists NN O O
recorded NN O O
visibility NN O O
scores NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
imaging NN O O
scores NN O O
at NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
high-echo NN O O
spots NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
cavity NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
wall NN O O
surface NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Pre-medication NN O O
with NN O O
pronase NN O I-INT
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
at NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
visibility NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
score NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
pre-medication NN O O
without NN O O
pronase NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
pronase NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
at NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
ultrasonography NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
cavity NN O O
( NN O O
score NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
treatments NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
ultrasonography NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
wall NN O O
surface NN O O
( NN O O
score NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
high-echo NN O I-OUT
spots NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
cavity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
at NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
pre-medication NN O O
with NN O O
pronase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
than NN O O
for NN O O
pre-medication NN O O
with NN O O
treatments NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
solutions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pre-treatment NN O O
with NN O O
pronase NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
artefacts NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1300984)

T NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
subsets NN O O
and NN O O
NK NN O O
cell NN O O
cytotoxicity NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rHu-EPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
subpopulations NN O O
of NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cytotoxic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
uremic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
regular NN O I-INT
hemodialysis NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD3 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Relative NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
CD16 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
elevated NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
NK NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
cytotoxic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
rHu-EPO NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
till NN O O
the NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
reached NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
corrected NN O O
anemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well-being NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
CD3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD16 NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
elevation NN O O
of NN O O
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cytotoxic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

Presented NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
significantly NN O O
diminished NN O O
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
rHu NN O I-INT
EPO NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
affects NN O O
the NN O O
T NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
subsets NN O O
inducing NN O O
a NN O O
deep NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
CD8 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD16 NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
leading NN O O
to NN O O
normalisation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1319876)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
temafloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
quinolone NN O O
antibacterial NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
enoxacin NN O O
, NN O O
pefloxacin NN O O
, NN O O
pipemidic NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
are NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
clearance NN O O
of NN O O
methylxanthines NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
temafloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O O
were NN O O
therefore NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
3-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
volunteer NN O O
received NN O O
183mg NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
temafloxacin NN O I-INT
600mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
750mg NN O I-INT
in NN O O
3 NN O O
separate NN O O
phases NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
sequence NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
doubling NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
77.8 NN O O
vs NN O O
31.8 NN O O
mg/L.h NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
terminal-phase NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.5h NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
magnitude NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intrinsic NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caffeine NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
by NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
described NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
for NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
theophylline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
may NN O O
partly NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
intertrial NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
dosage NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Coadministration NN O O
of NN O O
temafloxacin NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caffeine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
confirming NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
agent NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
methylxanthine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
appears NN O O
that NN O O
restriction NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O O
intake NN O O
during NN O O
temafloxacin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1326339)

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
adrenocorticotrophic NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4-9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
ORG NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
organization NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
neuropeptide NN O I-INT
ORG NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
synthetic NN O O
analog NN O O
of NN O O
adrenocorticotrophic NN O O
hormone NN O O
( NN O O
ACTH NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
4-9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ORG NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
during NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
amount NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
familiar NN O O
experimenter NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
interaction NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ORG NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
gaze NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smile NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
child NN O O
and NN O O
experimenter NN O O
showed NN O O
stronger NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
contingencies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
ORG NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
stereotypies NN O O
were NN O O
temporally NN O O
disconnected NN O O
from NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
initiatives NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
data NN O O
supported NN O O
the NN O O
notion NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
stimulating NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ORG NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
endogenous NN O O
opioid NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1336890)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
calcanean NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
occurring NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
hormone NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
calcanean NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
occurring NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HRT NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
calcanean NN O O
BMC NN O O
or NN O O
BMD NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
skeletal NN O O
sites NN O O
measured NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
calcanean NN O O
BMD NN O O
of NN O O
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
over NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
HRT NN O O
's NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
prevented NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
all NN O O
skeletal NN O O
sites NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
weight-bearing NN O O
or NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
trabecular NN O O
bone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
weight-bearing NN O O
bones NN O O
) NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
even NN O O
a NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O O
calcanean NN O I-OUT
BMC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
calcaneus NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
spine NN O O
correlated NN O O
equally NN O O
to NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
approximately NN O O
0.4 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
forearm NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
sites NN O O
measured NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
approximately NN O O
0.2-0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1378689)

Iloprost NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
during NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
post-operative NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
145 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Significant NN O O
preservation NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O O
numbers NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
were NN O O
shown NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
problems NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cerebral NN O O
deficits NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
iloprost NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
thrombocytopenia NN O I-PAR
seems NN O O
justified NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
from NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
routine NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
remain NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
shown NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1390473)

Cone NN O O
biopsy NN O O
: NN O O
has NN O O
endocervical NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
a NN O O
role NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
, NN O O
specificity NN O O
and NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
endocervical NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
smears NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
endocervical NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
Colposcopy NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Aberdeen NN O I-PAR
Royal NN O I-PAR
Infirmary NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
smears NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cone NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
colposcopy NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
53 NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
endocervical NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Kevorkian NN O I-INT
curette NN O I-INT
and NN O O
47 NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
sampling NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Medscand NN O I-INT
endocervical NN O I-INT
brush NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Cytology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
histology NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
endocervical NN O I-OUT
sampling NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
cone NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
histology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
overall NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endocervical NN O I-OUT
sampling NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
false NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Endocervical NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
should NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
management NN O O
when NN O O
colposcopy NN O O
is NN O O
unsatisfactory NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1391736)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
peptic NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
furazolidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Furazolidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FZ NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
China NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
peptic NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
about NN O O
20 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
good NN O O
short-term NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
animal NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
ulcer NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O O
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
and NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
healing NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
week NN O O
course NN O O
is NN O O
about NN O O
70-75 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
relapse NN O O
rate NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
is NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
to NN O O
FZ NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
severe NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
the NN O O
mutagenic NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
biological NN O O
systems NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
mutagenic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
mutagenic NN O O
and NN O O
carcinogenic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
humans NN O O
and NN O O
animals NN O O
remain NN O O
questionable NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
FZ NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
biotransformed NN O O
into NN O O
other NN O O
metabolites NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
FZ NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
peptic NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
understood NN O O
, NN O O
perhaps NN O O
partly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
monoamine NN O I-OUT
oxidase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
partly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
antibacterial NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
FZ NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1448121)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
secondary NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
Pneumocystis NN O O
carinii NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Group NN O O
Protocol NN O O
021 NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Pneumocystis NN O O
carinii NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
( NN O O
PCP NN O O
) NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
index NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acquired NN O O
immunodeficiency NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
AIDS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
which NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
available NN O O
agents NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PCP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
310 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
recently NN O I-PAR
recovered NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
PCP NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
treatment-limiting NN O I-PAR
toxic NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
trimethoprim NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
jet NN O I-INT
nebulizer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
17.4 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
154 NN O O
) NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
14 NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PCP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
36 NN O O
recurrences NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
1 NN O O
extrapulmonary NN O O
recurrence NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aerosolized-pentamidine NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
156 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
estimated NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
11.4 NN O O
percent NN O O
with NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
27.6 NN O O
percent NN O O
with NN O O
pentamidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
initial NN O O
CD4 NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
3.25 NN O O
times NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pentamidine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.72 NN O O
to NN O O
6.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Crossovers NN O O
from NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
to NN O O
aerosolized NN O O
pentamidine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
vs. NN O O
4 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
partly NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
protocols NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
leukopenia NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
19 NN O O
serious NN O O
bacterial NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pentamidine NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
zidovudine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
conventional NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
pneumocystis NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14514742)

Improved NN O O
acidosis NN O O
correction NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
mesothelial NN O O
cell NN O O
mass NN O O
with NN O O
neutral-pH NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
dialysis NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
automated NN O I-INT
peritoneal NN O I-INT
dialysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Acid-base NN O O
balance NN O O
and NN O O
peritoneal NN O O
membrane NN O O
longevity NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
utmost NN O O
relevance NN O O
for NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
peritoneal NN O I-INT
dialysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PD NN O O
fluids NN O O
with NN O O
neutral NN O O
pH NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
glucose NN O O
degradation NN O O
product NN O O
contents NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
more NN O O
biocompatible NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
they NN O O
preserve NN O O
peritoneal NN O O
cell NN O O
functions NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
PD NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
buffered NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
34 NN O I-INT
mM NN O I-INT
pure NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
neutral NN O I-INT
pH NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
acidic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
35 NN O I-INT
mM NN O I-INT
lactate NN O I-INT
PD NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
12-wk NN O O
periods NN O O
with NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
automated NN O I-INT
PD NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
APD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O I-OUT
bicarbonate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
mo NN O O
of NN O O
bicarbonate NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3 NN O O
mM NN O O
and NN O O
7.43 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
lactate NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.9 NN O O
mM NN O O
and NN O O
7.38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
reversible NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
returned NN O O
from NN O O
bicarbonate NN O O
to NN O O
lactate NN O O
fluid NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
young NN O O
patient NN O O
age NN O O
independently NN O O
predicted NN O O
increased NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
bicarbonate NN O I-OUT
APD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peritoneal NN O O
equilibration NN O O
tests NN O O
revealed NN O O
subtle NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
solute NN O I-OUT
transport NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
steep NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
equilibration NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
bicarbonate NN O O
dialysis NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
reduced NN O O
peritoneal NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
peritoneal NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
carcinogen NN O I-OUT
antigen-125 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
twofold NN O O
during NN O O
bicarbonate NN O O
APD NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
versus NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
U/ml NN O O
per NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mesothelial NN O O
cell NN O O
layer NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
fully NN O O
reversed NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
lactate NN O O
fluid NN O O
. NN O O

Effluent NN O I-OUT
carcinogen NN O I-OUT
antigen-125 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
inversely NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
peritoneal NN O O
glucose NN O O
exposure NN O O
during NN O O
lactate NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
bicarbonate NN O O
APD NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
mesothelial NN O O
cell NN O O
tolerance NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
glucose NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
neutral-pH NN O I-INT
PD NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
degradation NN O I-INT
product NN O I-INT
content NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
APD NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
neutral-pH NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bicarbonate-buffered NN O I-INT
PD NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
correction NN O O
of NN O O
metabolic NN O O
acidosis NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O O
preservation NN O O
of NN O O
peritoneal NN O O
cell NN O O
mass NN O O
than NN O O
do NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
acidic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lactate-based NN O I-INT
fluids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (14521638)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
feedback NN O O
for NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
guidelines NN O O
on NN O O
resource NN O O
utilization NN O O
for NN O O
complex NN O O
conditions NN O O
with NN O O
substantial NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
clinician NN O O
behavior NN O O
change NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
well NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multifaceted NN O I-INT
guideline NN O I-INT
implementation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
clinician NN O I-PAR
utilization NN O O
of NN O O
radiologic NN O O
and NN O O
specialty NN O O
services NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Physician NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
guideline NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
supporting NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
neither NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
guideline NN O O
adherence NN O O
and NN O O
resource NN O O
utilization NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
period NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
implementation NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
physician NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
physician NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
associate NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
HMO NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Guideline NN O I-INT
implementation NN O I-INT
utilized NN O O
an NN O O
education/audit/feedback NN O O
model NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
peer NN O O
opinion NN O O
leaders NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
videotaped NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
back NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
clinician NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
absolute NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
guideline-consistent NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
of NN O O
2.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patient NN O O
education NN O O
intervention NN O O
produced NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
guideline-consistent NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
poorly NN O O
adopted NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
including NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
illness NN O O
episode NN O O
were NN O O
strong NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
service NN O O
utilization NN O O
and NN O O
guideline-consistent NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Implementation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
feedback-supported NN O O
acute NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
care NN O O
guideline NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
clinicians NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
guideline-consistent NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
education NN O O
materials NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
enhance NN O O
guideline NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

Implementation NN O O
barriers NN O O
could NN O O
limit NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
usual NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (14550686)

Safety NN O O
of NN O O
injectable NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
heroin NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
growing NN O O
debate NN O O
about NN O O
injectable NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
many NN O O
Western NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
injectable NN O I-INT
opioids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
treatment NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
opioid-dependent NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
heroin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
methadone NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
their NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
prescribed NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Acute NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
, NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
electrocardiography NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electroencephalography NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
heroin NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
, NN O O
marked NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
progressing NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
Cheyne-Stokes NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

Peripheral NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
to NN O O
78.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
-90 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
hypoxia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O O
intermittent NN O O
and NN O O
somewhat NN O O
severe NN O O
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Five NN O O
subjects NN O O
exhibited NN O O
paroxysmal NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
pronounced NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
heroin NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
relevant NN O O
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Opioid NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
commonly NN O O
prescribed NN O O
in NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
induce NN O O
marked NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
circulatory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
occasionally NN O O
irregular NN O I-OUT
paroxysmal NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
optimize NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
serious NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
effects NN O O
raises NN O O
questions NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
appropriateness NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
form NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1457432)

Leukocyte-depleted NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
transplanted NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
hearts NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Standard NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
preservation NN O O
for NN O O
heart NN O O
transplantation NN O O
have NN O O
generally NN O O
provided NN O O
good NN O O
results NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Preservation NN O O
times NN O O
beyond NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Leukocyte-mediated NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
is NN O O
partly NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
decreased NN O O
graft NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
prolonged NN O O
graft NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

Leukocyte-depleted NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
experimentally NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
cold NN O O
ischemic NN O O
arrest NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
leukocyte-depleted NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
warm NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
warm NN O I-INT
leukocyte-depleted NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Reperfusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
leukocyte-depleted NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
enriched NN O O
cardioplegic NN O O
solution NN O O
added NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
donor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recipient NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
142 NN O O
versus NN O O
153 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Coronary NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
phosphokinase-MB NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
reperfusion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
1.65 NN O O
EU/min NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
3.83 NN O O
units/min NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thromboxane NN O I-OUT
B2 NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
33.6 NN O O
pg/min NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
67.0 NN O O
pg/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
hearts NN O I-OUT
functioned NN O I-OUT
adequately NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infectious NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
early NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
66 NN O O
days NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
infection NN O O
; NN O O
two NN O O
late NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
from NN O O
rejection NN O O
. NN O O

Leukocyte-depleted NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
easily NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
room NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
leukocyte-depleted NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
decreases NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
not NN O O
influencing NN O O
postoperative NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
the NN O O
ischemic NN O O
time NN O O
is NN O O
short NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
leukocyte-depleted NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
significant NN O O
reperfusion NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improve NN O O
posttransplantation NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
long NN O O
. NN O O

Safe NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ischemic NN O O
time NN O O
would NN O O
expand NN O O
the NN O O
donor NN O O
pool NN O O
and NN O O
allow NN O O
for NN O O
better NN O O
crossmatching NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14609821)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
umbilical NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
persistent NN O I-PAR
corneal NN O I-PAR
epithelial NN O I-PAR
defects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
umbilical NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
promoting NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
epithelial NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Umbilical NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O I-OUT
epithelial NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

60 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
31 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cord NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Epithelial NN O O
defects NN O O
measuring NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
linear NN O O
dimension NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
medical NN O O
management NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

Serial NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
epithelial NN O O
defects-namely NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
maximum NN O O
linear NN O O
dimensions NN O O
perpendicular NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
perimeter NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
at NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
days NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
. NN O O

Rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
epithelial NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
as NN O O
percentage NN O O
decrease NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
parameter NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
subsequent NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
non-parametric NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
rank NN O O
sum NN O O
test NN O O
using NN O O
STATA NN O O
7.0 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O O
percentage NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
epithelial NN O I-OUT
defect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cord NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
perimeter NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
re-epithelialisation NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
umbilical NN O O
cord NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
autologous NN O O
serum NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
Pearson NN O O
chi NN O O
= NN O O
0.19 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
any NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
or NN O O
discomfort NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Umbilical NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
leads NN O O
to NN O O
faster NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
epithelial NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
refractory NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
medical NN O O
management NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (14617595)

Remifentanil NN O O
with NN O O
morphine NN O O
transitional NN O O
analgesia NN O O
shortens NN O O
neurological NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
for NN O O
supratentorial NN O O
craniotomy NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
and NN O O
morphine NN O O
for NN O O
transitional NN O O
analgesia NN O O
with NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
craniotomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
supratentorial NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Ninety-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Anesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
induced NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
thiopental NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
remifentanil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
deemed NN O I-INT
appropriate NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Anesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
maintained NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
O/O NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
MAC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
remifentanil NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
0.04 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
flap NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
0.08 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
remifentanil NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
during NN O O
induction NN O O
( NN O O
145.6 NN O O
+/-17.5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
vs NN O O
128.8 NN O O
+/-18.3 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
intubation NN O O
( NN O O
126.9 NN O O
+/-17.1 NN O O
vs NN O O
110.9 NN O O
+/-16.5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
extubation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
but NN O O
less NN O O
variable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
min NN O O
: NN O O
range NN O O
= NN O O
2-44 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
min NN O O
: NN O O
range NN O O
= NN O O
1-732 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
= NN O O
38.0 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
= NN O O
26.0 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
anesthesiologists NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
nurses NN O O
rated NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
consciousness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analgesics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
required NN O O
earlier NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
0.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.08 NN O O
hr NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Remifentanil NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
suitable NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
in NN O O
supratentorial NN O O
craniotomy NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
preoperative NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
faster NN O O
and NN O O
morphine NN O O
provides NN O O
some NN O O
transitional NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
compromising NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14655885)

Extracorporeal NN O I-INT
shock NN O I-INT
wave NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESWT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
proximal NN O I-PAR
plantar NN O I-PAR
fasciitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
2-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
shock NN O I-INT
wave NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ESWT NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
chronically NN O I-PAR
painful NN O I-PAR
proximal NN O I-PAR
plantar NN O I-PAR
fasciitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
conventional NN O O
conservative NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
feet NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
unsuccessful NN O I-PAR
nonsurgical NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Heel NN O I-INT
cups NN O I-INT
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
worn NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
heels NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
treated NN O O
immediately NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
ESWT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3000 NN O I-INT
shock NN O I-INT
waves/session NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
mJ/mm2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
heels NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
continued NN O O
nonsurgical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iontophoresis NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
further NN O O
nonsurgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
ESWT NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
estimation NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O O
significantly NN O O
by NN O O
62.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
63.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
comfortable NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
ESWT NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
VAS NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
comfortable NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14668075)

Bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
actual NN O O
practice NN O O
: NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
on NN O O
individual NN O O
characteristics NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
outcome NN O O
following NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
for NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
6-week NN O O
end-of-treatment NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
characteristics NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
smoking NN O O
endpoints NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1,524 NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
649 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
875 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
45.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
( NN O O
150 NN O O
or NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
mailings NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
proactive NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
point-prevalent NN O O
smoking NN O O
status NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
12-month NN O O
point-prevalent NN O O
smoking NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
persistent NN O O
smoking NN O O
( NN O O
point-prevalent NN O O
smoking NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
combined NN O O
and NN O O
separately NN O O
. NN O O

Risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
smoking NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
endpoints NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
sample NN O O
included NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
tailored NN O O
mailings NN O O
, NN O O
female NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
younger NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O O
dependence NN O O
, NN O O
shorter NN O O
previous NN O O
quit NN O O
attempts NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
current NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
or NN O O
lifetime NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

Risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
smoking NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
only NN O O
included NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
, NN O O
younger NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
perceived NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
those NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
unique NN O O
to NN O O
men NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
lifetime NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
likelihood NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
returning NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
quitting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1467386)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
m-chlorophenylpiperazine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
homovanillic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
abundant NN O O
anatomical NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
serotonin NN O O
and NN O O
dopamine NN O O
systems NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
serotonin NN O O
agonist NN O O
, NN O O
m-chlorophenylpiperazine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mCPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dopamine NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
homovanillic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O O
prolactin NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
temperature NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mCPP NN O I-OUT
blood NN O O
level NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

mCPP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.35 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
orally NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Variables NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
210 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
capsules NN O O
. NN O O

mCPP NN O I-OUT
raised NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
placebo NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
homovanillic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
mCPP NN O I-OUT
does NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
alter NN O I-OUT
dopamine NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14711190)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
arterial NN O O
compliance NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
before NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
morphological NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
plaques NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
distensibility NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
gradually NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
is NN O O
regarded NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
feature NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
170 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mg/day NN O I-PAR
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
while NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
mg/day NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
and NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
fractions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Arterial NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
noninvasively NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
common NN O O
carotid NN O O
artery NN O O
with NN O O
color NN O O
Doppler NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
. NN O O

Atorvastatin NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
40.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
6.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
these NN O O
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
38.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
46.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
26.78 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
distensibility NN O I-OUT
coefficient NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
coefficient NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
18.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
to NN O O
21.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.9 NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-3 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
kPa NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
0.69 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.05 NN O O
to NN O O
0.77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.03 NN O O
mm2 NN O O
x NN O O
kPa NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
while NN O O
they NN O O
changed NN O O
from NN O O
18.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
to NN O O
21.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.0 NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-3 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
kPa NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
0.70 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.04 NN O O
to NN O O
0.81 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.01 NN O O
mm2 NN O O
x NN O O
kPa NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

DC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CC NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
reduce NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
compliance NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
is NN O O
regarded NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
feature NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
no NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
administer NN O O
aggressive NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
hyperlipidemia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14716650)

Transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
relief NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
chronic NN O O
pain NN O O
syndromes NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
utility NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
TENS NN O O
after NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PCA NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PCA NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
PCA NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
end-point NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
patient-controlled NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
TENS NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
utility NN O O
for NN O O
TENS NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
knee NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14722336)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
caregiver NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
negative NN O O
caregiver NN O I-PAR
appraisals NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Behavioral NN O O
problems NN O O
are NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
challenging NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
caring NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
person NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
406 NN O I-PAR
spouses-caregivers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
multicomponent NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Caregivers NN O O
reported NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
troublesome NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
them NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
regular NN O O
follow-up NN O O
interviews NN O O
. NN O O

Random-effects NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
behavioral NN O O
problems NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
caregivers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Because NN O O
caregiver NN O I-INT
appraisals NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
mediate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
caregiving NN O O
stress NN O O
on NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
nursing NN O O
home NN O O
placement NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
deserve NN O O
greater NN O O
attention NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
target NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14752429)

Left NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
artery-radial NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
myocardial NN O I-PAR
revascularization NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
myocardial NN O O
revascularization NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
a NN O O
debated NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
advantages NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
artery-radial NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
prospectively NN O O
enrolled NN O O
160 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-INT
myocardial NN O I-INT
revascularization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
revascularization NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
descending NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
radial NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
descending NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
saphenous NN O I-INT
veins NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
radial NN O O
artery NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O I-INT
Y-graft NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Preoperative NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EuroSCORE NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
7.9 NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
8.1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grafted NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
vessels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
2.4 NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-OUT
crossclamping NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
minutes NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
minutes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
3.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
comparable NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
cerebrovascular NN O I-OUT
accidents NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
patients NN O O
vs NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
showed NN O O
superior NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
graft NN O I-OUT
occlusion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
vs NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.06 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
angina NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
vs NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
identified NN O O
saphenous NN O O
vein NN O O
grafts NN O O
as NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
for NN O O
graft NN O I-OUT
occlusion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Left NN O O
internal NN O O
thoracic NN O O
artery-radial NN O O
artery NN O O
composite NN O O
grafts NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
procedure NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
graft NN O O
patency NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
late NN O O
cardiac NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14758586)

Comparison NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paroxetine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1479049)

Clonidine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperactive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
impulsive NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Many NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
associated NN O O
problems NN O O
of NN O O
inattention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impulsivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
limit NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
controlled NN O O
psychopharmacologic NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
which NN O O
agents NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
these NN O O
associated NN O O
features NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8.1 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
DSM-III-R NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
inattention NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
impulsivity NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
excessive NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
tolerated NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
psychopharmacologic NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
neuroleptics NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
desipramine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Teacher NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inappropriate NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
than NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Attention NN O O
deficit NN O O
disorder NN O O
with NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
: NN O O
Comprehensive NN O I-OUT
Teacher NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
oppositional NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

Parent NN O I-OUT
Conners NN O I-OUT
Abbreviated NN O I-OUT
Parent-Teacher NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
during NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Clonidine NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinician NN O O
ratings NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Psychiatric NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Anger NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
Deviance NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
videotaped NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clonidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
modestly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1492408)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
evening NN O I-INT
primrose NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
gamma NN O I-INT
linolenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
docahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
pre-eclampsia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
partially NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
evening NN O I-INT
primrose NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Magnesium NN O I-INT
Oxide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
Pre-Eclampsia NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Pregnancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
nutritional NN O O
supplements NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
primiparous NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
multiparous NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Some NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
personal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
histories NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Only NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
prenatal NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Central NN O I-PAR
Maternity NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Luanda NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
mixture NN O O
of NN O O
evening NN O I-INT
primrose NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
Gamma-linolenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
Magnesium NN O I-INT
Oxide NN O I-INT
had NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
fewer NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
developed NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
3 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
eclampsia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
all NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14980919)

Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
propofol NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
UNLABELLED NN O O
Propofol NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
-90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
techniques NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
tried NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
propofol-induced NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
variable NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
after NN O O
venous NN O O
occlusion NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
propofol-induced NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One-hundred-twenty-four NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
31 NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
I NN O O
received NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
received NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
groups NN O O
III NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
received NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
mL NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
occlusion NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Propofol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
after NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O O
occlusion NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
four-point NN O O
scale NN O O
: NN O O
0 NN O O
= NN O O
no NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
mild NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
moderate NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
= NN O O
severe NN O O
pain NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
pretreated NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
pretreated NN O O
with NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thiopental NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
suggest NN O O
routine NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
venous NN O O
occlusion NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Pain NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
IV NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
is NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
-90 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
after NN O O
manual NN O O
venous NN O O
occlusion NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
effectively NN O O
attenuated NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Thiopental NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
routinely NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15053783)

Metoprolol NN O I-INT
CR/XL NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
release/extended NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CR/XL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
would NN O O
improve NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
decreased NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
an NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
substudy NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Metoprolol NN O I-INT
CR/XL NN O I-INT
Randomized NN O O
Intervention NN O O
Trial NN O O
in NN O O
Heart NN O O
Failure NN O O
( NN O O
MERIT-HF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
66 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
three NN O O
times NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
period NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
assessing NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
mitral NN O I-OUT
inflow NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
all NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
CR/XL NN O I-INT
group NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
0.26 NN O O
to NN O O
0.31 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
10.6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
deceleration NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
mitral NN O I-OUT
filling NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
E NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
189 NN O O
to NN O O
246 NN O O
ms NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0012 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
integral NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
E-wave NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
8.7 NN O O
to NN O O
11.2 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
mitral NN O I-OUT
filling NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
122 NN O O
to NN O O
145 NN O O
ms NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
regarding NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Metoprolol NN O I-INT
CR/XL NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
improved NN O O
both NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
decreased NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15084616)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tipifarnib NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
farnesyltransferase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
tipifarnib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Zarnestra NN O O
, NN O O
R115777 NN O O
; NN O O
Johnson NN O O
and NN O O
Johnson NN O O
Pharmaceutical NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Development NN O O
, NN O O
Beerse NN O O
, NN O O
Belgium NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
gemcitabine NN O O
therapy NN O O
improves NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
tipifarnib NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tipifarnib NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
continuously NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1,000 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
6-month NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
balanced NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
193 NN O O
v NN O O
182 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.75 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
6-month NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
112 NN O O
v NN O O
109 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
seven NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Neutropenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
versus NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Incidences NN O O
of NN O O
nonhematologic NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tipifarnib NN O I-INT
has NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
toxicity NN O O
profile NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
prolong NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
single-agent NN O O
gemcitabine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15131557)

Primary NN O I-INT
stenting NN O I-INT
of NN O O
occluded NN O O
native NN O O
coronary NN O O
arteries NN O O
: NN O O
final NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Primary NN O O
Stenting NN O O
of NN O O
Occluded NN O I-PAR
Native NN O I-PAR
Coronary NN O I-PAR
Arteries NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PRISON NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Primary NN O I-INT
intracoronary NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
after NN O O
successfully NN O O
crossing NN O O
chronic NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
occlusions NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
restenosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
occlusions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
angiographic NN O O
follow-up NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O O
coronary NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
core NN O O
lab NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
evenly NN O O
distributed NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
minimal NN O I-OUT
luminal NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
2.34 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.46 NN O O
mm NN O O
versus NN O O
2.90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.41 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stented NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
6-month NN O O
angiographic NN O O
follow-up NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
minimal NN O I-OUT
luminal NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1.57 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.74 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
1.93 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.85 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stented NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.009 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
44.7 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
25.0 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
35.5 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
26.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Binary NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
diameter NN O O
stenosis NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stented NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.137 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reocclusion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
7.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
1.00 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
12 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
stenting NN O I-INT
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
occlusions NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
restenosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15132762)

Increased NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviours NN O O
and NN O O
prolactin NN O O
responsivity NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
m-chlorophenylpiperazine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
primary NN O O
behavioural NN O O
domains NN O O
: NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviours NN O O
, NN O O
social NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
language NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
exist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serotonin NN O O
( NN O O
5-HT NN O O
) NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
5-HT NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
repetitive NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
behaviours NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
m-chlorophenylpiperazine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
m-CPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviours NN O O
and NN O O
prolactin NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Aspergers NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gender-matched NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
m-CPP NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
challenges NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
instrument NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
six NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
know NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
repeating NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ordering NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tell/ask NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
touching NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
end-point NN O O
following NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
m-CPP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Additionally NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
m-CPP NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
neither NN O O
group NN O O
responding NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
further NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
altered NN O O
5-HT NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviours NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
and NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1515255)

Prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
double NN O O
hemi-body NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
subsequent NN O O
maintenance NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
2b NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
on NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsed NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immediately NN O O
before NN O O
first NN O O
hemi-body NN O O
irradiation NN O O
, NN O O
59 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsed NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
subsequent NN O O
alpha-2b NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
31 NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interferon NN O O
arm NN O O
] NN O O
received NN O O
single NN O I-INT
hemi-body NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
due NN O O
to NN O O
progressive NN O O
disease NN O O
and/or NN O O
persistent NN O I-INT
cytopoenias NN O I-INT
following NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
time NN O O
between NN O O
upper NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
hemi-body NN O O
irradiation NN O O
was NN O O
69 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
35-294 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
interferon NN O O
and NN O O
completing NN O O
double NN O O
hemi-body NN O O
irradiation NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
adequate NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
interferon NN O O
administration NN O O
as NN O O
per NN O O
study NN O O
criteria NN O O
commencing NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
116 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
61-241 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
starting NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
65 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
26-160 NN O O
) NN O O
post NN O O
second NN O O
hemi-body NN O O
irradiation NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
16.4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
2-33.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
durations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
between NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
interferon NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15206990)

Single NN O O
and NN O O
short-term NN O O
dosing NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adenosine NN O O
monophosphate NN O O
bronchoprovocation NN O O
in NN O O
atopic NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
Adenosine NN O O
monophosphate NN O O
( NN O O
AMP NN O O
) NN O O
acts NN O O
indirectly NN O O
via NN O O
primed NN O O
airway NN O O
mast NN O O
cells NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
bronchial NN O O
hyper-responsiveness NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
in NN O O
turn NN O O
correlates NN O O
with NN O O
eosinophilic NN O I-OUT
asthmatic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
atopic NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
single NN O O
and NN O O
short-term NN O O
dosing NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
modern NN O O
histamine NN O O
H1-receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
clinically NN O O
recommended NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
AMP NN O O
bronchoprovocation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cross-over NN O I-PAR
fashion NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
provocative NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
AMP NN O O
producing NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
( NN O O
PC20 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
washout NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
4-6 NN O O
h NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
last NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SEM NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
washout NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
comparing NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
prechallenge NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
% NN O O
predicted NN O O
) NN O O
83 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
vs NN O O
82 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
AMP NN O I-OUT
PC20 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mg NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
45 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
vs NN O O
45 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Airway NN O I-OUT
calibre NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
prechallenge NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
86 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
vs NN O O
82 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
dose NN O O
85 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
vs NN O O
83 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
AMP NN O I-OUT
PC20 NN O I-OUT
comparing NN O O
levocetirizine NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
123 NN O O
+/- NN O O
73 NN O O
vs NN O O
48 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
1.4 NN O O
doubling NN O O
dilution NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.8 NN O O
, NN O O
1.9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
dose NN O O
127 NN O O
+/- NN O O
74 NN O O
vs NN O O
53 NN O O
+/- NN O O
29 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
1.2 NN O O
doubling NN O O
dilution NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
2.0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

AMP NN O I-OUT
PC20 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
last NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
levocetirizine NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
vs NN O O
respective NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
there NN O O
being NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
protection NN O O
between NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
last NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Single NN O O
and NN O O
short-term NN O O
dosing NN O O
with NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
conferred NN O O
similar NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
bronchial NN O I-OUT
hyper-responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
AMP NN O I-OUT
challenge NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
prechallenge NN O O
airway NN O O
calibre NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
indicated NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
longer-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
asthma NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15220594)

Untreated NN O I-PAR
silicone NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
implant NN O I-PAR
rupture NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Implant NN O O
rupture NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
well-known NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
implant NN O O
surgery NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
pass NN O O
unnoticed NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
physician NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
addressed NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
health NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
silicone NN O O
breast NN O O
implant NN O O
rupture NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
untreated NN O O
ruptures NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
serologic NN O O
markers NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
self-reported NN O O
breast NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
baseline NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
1999 NN O O
on NN O O
271 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
chosen NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
larger NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
cosmetic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
implants NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
follow-up NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
2001 NN O O
, NN O O
excluding NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
explantation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
examinations NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
44 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
examinations NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
identified NN O O
64 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
ruptured NN O I-PAR
implant NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
magnetic NN O I-PAR
resonance NN O I-PAR
imaging NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
intact NN O O
implants NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
examinations NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
98 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
images NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
examinations NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
rupture NN O O
configuration NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Comparisons NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
made NN O O
for NN O O
self-reported NN O O
breast NN O O
symptoms NN O O
occurring NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
antinuclear NN O O
antibodies NN O O
, NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
factor NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cardiolipin NN O O
antibodies NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
G NN O O
and NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
M. NN O O
The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
implant NN O O
rupture NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
visible NN O O
magnetic NN O I-OUT
resonance NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
their NN O O
ruptured NN O O
implants NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
11 NN O O
implants NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
observed NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
silicone NN O I-OUT
seepage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
either NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
conversion NN O O
from NN O O
intracapsular NN O O
into NN O O
extracapsular NN O O
rupture NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
extra-capsular NN O O
silicone NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
as NN O O
increasing NN O O
herniation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
silicone NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fibrous NN O I-OUT
capsule NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
minor NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
changes NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
ascribed NN O O
to NN O O
trauma NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
others NN O O
seemed NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autoantibodies NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
with NN O O
untreated NN O O
implant NN O I-INT
ruptures NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
nonspecific NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
2.1 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.2 NN O O
to NN O O
3.8 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
women NN O O
without NN O O
ruptures NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
untreated NN O O
silicone NN O O
breast NN O O
implant NN O O
rupture NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
implant NN O O
rupture NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
harmless NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
only NN O O
rarely NN O O
progresses NN O O
and NN O O
gives NN O O
rise NN O O
to NN O O
notable NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
so NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
silicone NN O O
spread NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
implant NN O O
ruptures NN O O
be NN O O
followed NN O O
clinically NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
not NN O O
operated NN O O
on NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
implant NN O O
ruptures NN O O
often NN O O
occur NN O O
asymptomatically NN O O
, NN O O
any NN O O
woman NN O O
with NN O O
silicone NN O O
implants NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
rupture NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
regular NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15224627)

Public NN O O
and NN O O
private NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
feedback NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-INT
phobia NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
manipulation NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
visibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
According NN O O
to NN O O
cognitive NN O O
behavioural NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-INT
phobia NN O I-INT
, NN O O
bodily NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
information NN O O
concerning NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
social NN O I-INT
phobics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Experience NN O O
and NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
bodily NN O O
symptoms NN O O
therefore NN O O
play NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
visibility NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
feedback NN O O
of NN O O
veridical NN O O
heart NN O O
sounds NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-INT
phobics NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
asked NN O O
twice NN O O
to NN O O
sit NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
chair NN O O
and NN O O
appear NN O O
relaxed NN O O
while NN O O
being NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O I-INT
heard NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
sounds NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
headphones NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
loudspeakers NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
audible NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
observers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
presentation NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
sound NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reversed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Social NN O I-INT
phobics NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
substantially NN O O
more NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
habituation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
presentation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
reported NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
social NN O O
phobics NN O O
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
worried NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
public NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
private NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
excess NN O O
of NN O O
actual NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
social NN O I-INT
phobics NN O I-INT
worried NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
the NN O O
broadcast NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
bodily NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Information NN O O
about NN O O
arousal NN O O
made NN O O
public NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
social NN O O
phobics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15233698)

Six-month NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
on-demand NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
maintains NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-erosive NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Compliance NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
generally NN O O
take NN O O
their NN O O
medication NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
experiencing NN O O
these NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
on-demand NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-erosive NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
multicentre NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
on-demand NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
heartburn NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
535 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
then NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
on-demand NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end-point NN O O
was NN O O
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
on-demand NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Eighty-three NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
432 NN O O
of NN O O
523 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
complete NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
on-demand NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inadequate NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
of NN O O
139 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
of NN O O
279 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.00001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Antacid NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
twofold NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
the NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Rabeprazole NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
is NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
as NN O O
on-demand NN O O
long-term NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
non-erosive NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15241630)

Registration NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
153Gd NN O O
transmission NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
non-rigid NN O O
nine-parameter NN O O
image NN O O
registrations NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
153Gd NN O I-INT
transmission NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TCT NN O O
) NN O O
images NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
99mTc-ethyl NN O I-INT
cysteinate NN O I-INT
dimer NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
images NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
normalised NN O O
mutual NN O O
information NN O O
( NN O O
NMI NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
count NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
CD NN O O
) NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
TCT NN O O
and NN O O
ECD NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
acquired NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Emission NN O O
images NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
ECD NN O I-INT
template NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
CD NN O O
cost NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
registration NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
transmission NN O O
images NN O O
to NN O O
create NN O O
a NN O O
TCT NN O O
template NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
TCT NN O O
images NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
TCT NN O I-INT
template NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
registration NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ECD NN O I-INT
images NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
with NN O O
NMI NN O O
as NN O O
cost NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
ECD-based NN O I-INT
and NN O O
TCT-based NN O I-INT
registrations NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
normalisation NN O O
parameter NN O O
values NN O O
and NN O O
regional NN O O
activities NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
spatially NN O O
normalised NN O O
ECD NN O O
images NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
mixed-model NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Scheffe NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
ECD/CD NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ECD/NMI NN O I-INT
and NN O O
TCT/CD NN O I-INT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
ECD NN O O
registration NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
done NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
CD NN O O
or NN O O
NMI NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
TCT NN O O
registration NN O O
using NN O O
CD NN O O
is NN O O
equally NN O O
as NN O O
accurate NN O O
as NN O O
ECD NN O O
registration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TCT NN O I-OUT
registration NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
NMI NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
discrepancies NN O O
occurring NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frontal NN O O
inferior NN O O
region NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cerebellum NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
normalisation NN O O
parameters NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
z-scaling NN O O
is NN O O
underestimated NN O O
and NN O O
yz-rotation NN O O
overestimated NN O O
with NN O O
TCT/NMI NN O O
registration NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
ECD NN O I-INT
registrations NN O O
with NN O O
CD NN O I-INT
or NN O O
NMI NN O I-INT
are NN O O
as NN O O
accurate NN O O
as NN O O
TCT NN O I-INT
registrations NN O O
with NN O O
CD NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
TCT NN O I-INT
registrations NN O O
with NN O O
NMI NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
avoided NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15247730)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
nitinol NN O I-INT
tipless NN O I-INT
stone NN O I-INT
baskets NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O I-OUT
caliceal NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Tipless NN O I-INT
stone NN O I-INT
baskets NN O I-INT
facilitate NN O O
caliceal NN O I-PAR
calculi NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
flexible NN O I-PAR
ureteroscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
stone NN O I-PAR
capture NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
commercially NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
tipless NN O I-INT
stone NN O I-INT
baskets NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
vitro NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
novice NN O O
and NN O O
expert NN O O
operators NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
Microvasive NN O I-INT
Zerotip NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2.4Fr NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3.0Fr NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cook NN O I-INT
N-Circle NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2.2Fr NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3.0Fr NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3.2Fr NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Bard NN O I-INT
Dimension NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3.0Fr NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Sacred NN O I-INT
Heart NN O I-INT
Medical NN O I-INT
Halo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1.9Fr NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Vantage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1.9Fr NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Circon-ACMI NN O I-INT
Sur-Catch-NT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3.0Fr NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
tested NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O I-PAR
novice NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
basket NN O I-PAR
operators NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O I-PAR
operator NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
stone NN O I-INT
extraction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
calculi NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
size NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
digital NN O O
caliper NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
repetitions NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
basket NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
extraction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
calculus NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
convex NN O O
based NN O O
test NN O O
tube NN O O
caliceal NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
and NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
pairwise NN O O
comparisons NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
learning NN O O
curve NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
basket NN O O
retrievals NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
stone NN O I-OUT
capture NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
novice NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
54 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
expert NN O I-PAR
operators NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
32 NN O O
+/- NN O O
49 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.174 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
total NN O O
stone NN O O
capture NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
sizes NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
Sacred NN O O
Heart NN O O
Halo NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
stone NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
novices NN O O
and NN O O
experts NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
Sur-Catch NN O O
NT NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
slowest NN O O
stone NN O O
extraction NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
+/- NN O O
90 NN O O
, NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Halo NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Vantage NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
baskets NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
calculi NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
N-Circle NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
+/- NN O O
60 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Sur-Catch NN O O
( NN O O
169 NN O O
+/- NN O O
85 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Dimension NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
+/- NN O O
70 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Zerotip NN O O
functioned NN O O
well NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
calculi NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hands NN O O
of NN O O
expert NN O O
operators NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
novice NN O O
operators NN O O
( NN O O
94 NN O O
+/- NN O O
95 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Sur-Catch NN O O
NT NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
slower NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
calculi NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
N-Circle NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Dimension NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
=.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Halo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
=.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Vantage NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Zerotip NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
=.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
calculi NN O O
the NN O O
Halo NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
Zerotip NN O O
were NN O O
superior NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
mm NN O O
calculi NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
N-Circle NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.026 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Halo NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.021 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Vantage NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
Sacred NN O O
Heart NN O O
Halo NN O O
and NN O O
Vantage NN O O
baskets NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O I-OUT
expeditious NN O I-OUT
stone NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
calculi NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
Microvasive NN O O
Zerotip NN O O
was NN O O
optimal NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
mm NN O O
calculi NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Sur-Catch NN O O
NT NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
slowest NN O I-OUT
stone NN O I-OUT
capture NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
stone NN O O
sizes NN O O
. NN O O

Caliceal NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
stone NN O I-INT
basketing NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
train NN O O
novice NN O O
urology NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
assistants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15249792)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dietary NN O O
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
stop NN O O
hypertension NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
sodium NN O O
intake NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
Dietary NN O I-INT
Approaches NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Stop NN O I-INT
Hypertension NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DASH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
reduced NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
would NN O O
control NN O O
stage NN O O
1 NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
high-normal NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
optimal NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
120-159 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
80-95 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
DASH NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
typical NN O I-INT
American NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
consuming NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
intakes NN O I-INT
( NN O O
higher=142 NN O O
mmol/d NN O O
, NN O O
intermediate=107 NN O O
mmol/d NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lower=65 NN O O
mmol/d NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

BP NN O O
control NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
140 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
and NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
90 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
at NN O O
higher NN O O
sodium NN O O
intake NN O O
the NN O O
DASH NN O O
diet NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
two-fold NN O O
over NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.4-2.9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reducing NN O O
sodium NN O O
intake NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
diet NN O O
group NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
2.3-fold NN O O
( NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.7-3.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
DASH/lower NN O O
sodium NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

BP NN O I-OUT
became NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
optimal NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
persons NN O O
consuming NN O O
the NN O O
control/lower NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
persons NN O O
consuming NN O O
the NN O O
DASH/lower NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
the NN O O
DASH NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
sodium NN O O
intake NN O O
improved NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15264973)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
reinforcement NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
obesity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Obese NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
family-based NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
reinforcement NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
sedentary NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
and NN O O
equivalent NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
foods NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fruits NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
standardized NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
z-BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
who NN O O
substituted NN O O
active NN O O
for NN O O
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
z-BMI NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
-1.21 NN O O
vs. NN O O
-0.76 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
-1.05 NN O O
vs. NN O O
-0.51 NN O O
) NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Substitution NN O O
of NN O O
physically NN O O
active NN O O
for NN O O
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
6- NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
z-BMI NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
stimulus NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
reinforcing NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
equivalent NN O O
ways NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
economic NN O I-OUT
relationships NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
eating NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
mediate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15278032)

[ NN O O
Tension-free NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
versus NN O O
open NN O I-INT
inguinal NN O I-INT
hernia NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
decade NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
techniques NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
inguinal NN O I-OUT
hernia NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
combine NN O O
tension-free NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
esthetic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
mini-invasive NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Anyway NN O O
controversy NN O O
persists NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
inguinal NN O O
hernia NN O O
repair NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
approach NN O O
concerning NN O O
: NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
usual NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
121 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
inguinal NN O I-INT
hernia NN O I-INT
repairs NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-month NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Male NN O I-PAR
well-informed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
monolateral NN O I-PAR
inguinal NN O I-PAR
hernia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
consecutively NN O O
treated NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
transabdominal NN O I-INT
preperitoneal NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
TAPP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
47+/-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
open NN O I-INT
mesh NN O I-INT
herniorrhaphy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
45+/-6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.26 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
none NN O O
needed NN O O
conversion NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4.68 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
considered NN O O
minor NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Post-operative NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
show NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
post-hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.7 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
longer NN O O
( NN O O
2.9 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
convalescence NN O I-OUT
too NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
9.3+/-7.2 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
12.1+/-7 NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
experience NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
inguinal NN O I-INT
hernia NN O I-INT
is NN O O
confirmed NN O O
. NN O O

General NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
costs NN O O
are NN O O
reasonable NN O O
compromises NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
period NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
busy NN O I-PAR
job/sport NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15302308)

Gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
raloxifene NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15302787)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
sirolimus NN O O
for NN O O
restenosis NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
in-stent NN O I-PAR
restenosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Oral NN O O
Sirolimus NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Inhibit NN O O
Recurrent NN O O
In-stent NN O O
Stenosis NN O O
( NN O O
OSIRIS NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Despite NN O O
recent NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
interventional NN O O
cardiology NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
drug-eluting NN O O
stents NN O O
for NN O O
de NN O O
novo NN O O
coronary NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
in-stent NN O O
restenosis NN O O
( NN O O
ISR NN O O
) NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
challenging NN O O
clinical NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
sirolimus NN O O
administration NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
neointimal NN O I-OUT
hyperplasia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
animal NN O O
models NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
halt NN O O
and NN O O
even NN O O
reverse NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
allograft NN O O
vasculopathy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
10-day NN O O
oral NN O O
sirolimus NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
different NN O O
loading NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
restenosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ISR NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ISR NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
: NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
usual-dose NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
sirolimus NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
cumulative NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
24 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
sirolimus NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
repeat NN O O
intervention NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Angiographic NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
6-month NN O I-OUT
angiography NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Restenosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
42.2 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
38.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
22.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
usual-dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-dose NN O O
sirolimus NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
25.5 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
24.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
15.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
usual-dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-dose NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
sirolimus NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
correlated NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
lumen NN O O
loss NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ISR NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
sirolimus NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intensified NN O O
loading NN O O
regimen NN O O
before NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15317925)

Risk NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
fracture NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Common NN O O
clinical NN O O
risk NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
fracture NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
UK NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
important NN O O
risk NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
fracture NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Comprehensive NN O I-INT
cohort NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CCS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
nested NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
CCS NN O I-INT
included NN O I-PAR
4292 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
potential NN O O
risk NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
fracture NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
followed-up NN O O
participants NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
non-vertebral NN O O
fractures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Odds NN O O
ratios NN O O
( NN O O
ORs NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
any NN O O
non-vertebral NN O O
fracture NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
previous NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
2.67 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
2.10-3.40 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
last NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
2.06 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.63-2.59 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
increase NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1.03 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.01-1.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ORs NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
hip NN O O
fracture NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
previous NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
2.31 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.31-4.08 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
58 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2.20 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.28-3.77 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1.68 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.85-3.31 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
last NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
2.92 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.70-5.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
increase NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1.09 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.04-1.13 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ORs NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
wrist NN O O
fracture NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
previous NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
2.29 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.56-3.34 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
last NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1.60 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.10-2.31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Being NN O O
a NN O O
current NN O I-OUT
smoker NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
fracture NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Older NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
investigated NN O O
for NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
or NN O O
offered NN O O
preventive NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15319704)

Ropinirole NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
restless NN O I-PAR
legs NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
open NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
versus NN O O
levodopa NN O I-INT
sustained NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Restless NN O O
legs NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
RLS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
neurologic NN O O
condition NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
uncomfortable NN O O
and NN O O
unpleasant NN O O
sensations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
legs NN O O
, NN O O
occurring NN O O
primarily NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
usually NN O O
worse NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
alleviated NN O O
by NN O O
movement NN O O
. NN O O

RLS NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
20-40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
14-week NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
ropinirole NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
levodopa NN O I-INT
sustained NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RLS NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eleven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
levodopa NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ropinirole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
washout NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
alternate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
rated NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RLS NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
6-item NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
developed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O O
Restless NN O O
Legs NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
6-item NN O O
IRLS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Global NN O O
Impression NN O O
( NN O O
CGI NN O O
) NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
sleep NN O O
diaries NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Under NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
levodopa NN O O
SR NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
presented NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
a NN O O
33.5 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
16.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
to NN O O
11.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
6-item NN O O
IRLS NN O O
scores NN O O
during NN O O
levodopa NN O O
SR NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
73.5 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
16.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
to NN O O
4.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.8 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
ropinirole NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
levodopa NN O O
SR NN O O
dosage NN O O
was NN O O
190 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
ropinirole NN O O
dosage NN O O
was NN O O
1.45 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
. NN O O

Ropinirole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
levodopa NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
6-item NN O O
IRLS NN O O
scores NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patient NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
favoring NN O O
ropinirole NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
carryover NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
any NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
reversion NN O O
of NN O O
RLS NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
ropinirole NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
0.25-2 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
ropinirole NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
levodopa NN O O
SR NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
RLS NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15353873)

A NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
platelets NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelium NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
contributor NN O O
to NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
many NN O O
other NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

Angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
effectors NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
plays NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
monocyte NN O O
, NN O O
platelet NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
endothelium NN O O
interactions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
either NN O O
by NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
or NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonists NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10-20 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400-800 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Platelet NN O O
activation NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PF-4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
beta-thromboglobulin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
beta-TG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
beta-thromboglobulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
measuring NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
nitrate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vWF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
occlusive NN O I-OUT
plethysmography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
eprosartan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
sitting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
152.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18.7 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
to NN O O
141.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
23.5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
151 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.0 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
to NN O O
142.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.9 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DPB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
94 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.7 NN O O
to NN O O
84.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.6 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
DBP NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
response NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
administered NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
treatments NN O O
of NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
both NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

Eprosartan NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mid-to-moderate NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
DBP NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
reduction NN O O
to NN O O
eprosartin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
to NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
agents NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
solely NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
possibly NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
mediated NN O O
through NN O O
their NN O O
unique NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
blockade NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1536276)

Differential NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Clomipramine NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
serotonin NN O O
reuptake NN O O
blocker NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
unique NN O O
antiobsessional NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
effect NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
desipramine NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
tricyclic NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
with NN O O
selective NN O O
adrenergic NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
stereotyped NN O O
, NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Seven NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
6-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
desipramine NN O I-INT
following NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clomipramine NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
desipramine NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
standardized NN O O
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anger NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compulsive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clomipramine NN O O
and NN O O
desipramine NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parents NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
elected NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
continue NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
clomipramine NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Clomipramine NN O O
and NN O O
desipramine NN O O
are NN O O
differentially NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
the NN O O
obsessive-compulsive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

Biological NN O O
links NN O O
between NN O O
compulsions NN O O
and NN O O
stereotyped NN O O
, NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15364709)

Further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
retinitis NN O I-PAR
pigmentosa NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
will NN O O
slow NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
retinal NN O O
degeneration NN O O
in NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
retinitis NN O I-PAR
pigmentosa NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
208 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
retinitis NN O I-PAR
pigmentosa NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
000 NN O I-INT
IU/d NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
retinyl NN O I-INT
palmitate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
000 NN O I-INT
IU/d NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
000 NN O I-PAR
IU/d NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
compared NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
ocular NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
control NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
subgroups NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
use NN O O
or NN O O
nonuse NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
determined NN O O
whether NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
ocular NN O O
function NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
red NN O O
blood NN O O
cell NN O O
phosphatidylethanolamine NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O O
acid NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
dietary NN O O
omega-3 NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
Humphrey NN O I-OUT
Field NN O I-OUT
Analyzer NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
30-Hz NN O I-OUT
electroretinogram NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
patients NN O O
not NN O I-INT
taking NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
entry NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
slower NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
field NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electroretinogram NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
group NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.01 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
=.03 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
years NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
or NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
red NN O O
blood NN O O
cell NN O O
phosphatidylethanolamine NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
level NN O O
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
trend NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
particularly NN O O
evident NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
not NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
entry NN O O
( NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
trend NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
control NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
< NN O O
0.20 NN O O
vs NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=0.20 NN O O
g/d NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
entry NN O O
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
electroretinogram NN O O
amplitude NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
For NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
retinitis NN O I-PAR
pigmentosa NN O I-PAR
beginning NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
slowed NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=0.20 NN O O
g/d NN O O
) NN O O
slowed NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O O
field NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15377466)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
aplastic NN O O
anemia NN O O
with NN O O
antilymphocyte NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
GITMO NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
aplastic NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SAA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
anti-lymphocyte NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CyA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g/kg/day NN O I-INT
had NN O O
an NN O O
encouraging NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
respond NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
remain NN O O
significant NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g/kg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
would NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
these NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
SAA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
horse NN O I-INT
ALG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/day NN O I-INT
day1-5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CyA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/day NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1-180 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g/kg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=38 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g/kg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=39 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
+1 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
+30 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
micro NN O I-INT
g/kg/day NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
+31 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
+90 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
day NN O O
+120 NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
day NN O O
+120 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
day NN O O
+120 NN O O
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
absent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
23 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
last NN O O
follow-up NN O O
these NN O O
figures NN O O
were NN O O
respectively NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
vs NN O O
19 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
died NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
day NN O O
120 NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
120 NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
Hb NN O O
10.5 NN O O
and NN O O
9.5 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Neutrophil NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
2.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.9x10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
vs NN O O
36x10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
actuarial NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
is NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
AND NN O O
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Increasing NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SAA NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
ALG NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CyA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15383046)

Atrial NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
mitral NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
permanent NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Mitral NN O O
valve NN O O
pathology NN O O
is NN O O
frequently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
auricular NN O O
dilatation NN O O
and NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
. NN O O

Mitral NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
allows NN O O
an NN O O
immediate NN O O
surgical NN O O
auricular NN O O
remodeling NN O O
and NN O O
besides NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
is NN O O
reached NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
late NN O O
remodeling NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
auricular NN O O
remodeling NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
permanent NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
mitral NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
permanent NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dilated NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
atrium NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
submitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
mitral NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
contained NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
auricular NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mitral NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
contained NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
isolated NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
homogeneous NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
31 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
versus NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
restarted NN O O
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
auricular NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
recovered NN O O
from NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
, NN O O
worthy NN O O
of NN O O
remark NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
-10.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
auricular NN O O
volume NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
-21.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
enlargement NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
place NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
remained NN O O
with NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
( NN O O
+16.8 NN O O
% NN O O
left NN O O
auricular NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
vs. NN O O
+8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Mitral NN O O
surgery NN O O
produces NN O O
an NN O O
atrial NN O O
postoperative NN O O
volume NN O O
that NN O O
decrease NN O O
especially NN O O
when NN O O
reduction NN O O
techniques NN O O
are NN O O
employed NN O O
. NN O O

Late NN O O
left NN O O
atrial NN O O
remodeling NN O O
depended NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
atrial NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15492353)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
disruptive NN O O
behavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
disruptive NN O O
behavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
risperidone/placebo NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.01-0.06 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
79 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Behavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
Nisonger NN O O
Child NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Rating NN O O
Form NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Global NN O O
Impression-Change NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O O
assessments NN O O
included NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
, NN O O
electrocardiogram NN O O
, NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
taking NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
dosage NN O O
: NN O O
0.04 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
; NN O O
1.17 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
taking NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
study NN O O
endpoint NN O O
, NN O O
risperidone-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
over NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
almost NN O O
double NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
also NN O O
exhibited NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
decreases NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
4 NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
conduct NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insecure/anxious NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperactive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overly NN O I-OUT
sensitive NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Nisonger NN O I-OUT
Child NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analog NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
troublesome NN O O
symptom NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
risperidone-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
global NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
condition NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Somnolence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
72.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
seemed NN O O
manageable NN O O
with NN O O
dose/dose-schedule NN O O
modification NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
experienced NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.0 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pulse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Extrapyramidal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
behavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
PDD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15530681)

Influenza NN O O
and NN O O
pneumococcal NN O O
vaccination NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
inflammation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
set NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pneumococcal NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
mild NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pneumococcal NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CRP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
fragment NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F1+2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
times NN O O
after NN O O
vaccination NN O O
. NN O O

Influenza NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
CRP NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
0.20 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
influenza NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
pneumococcal NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
CRP NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
0.60 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
. NN O O

F1+2 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
0.15 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
vaccination NN O O
; NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
influenza NN O I-OUT
vaccination NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pneumococcal NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
CRP-levels NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
peak NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
vaccination NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15538933)

Blockade NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
growth NN O O
hormone-releasing NN O O
hormone NN O O
receptors NN O O
dissociates NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
slow-wave NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
A NN O O
temporal NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
non-rapid NN O O
eye NN O O
movement NN O O
( NN O O
NREM NN O O
) NN O O
sleep NN O O
stages NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
release NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
long NN O O
ago NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
the NN O O
precise NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
association NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
that NN O O
pulsatile NN O O
GHRH NN O O
administration NN O O
increases NN O O
both NN O O
slow-wave NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SWS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
GHRH NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
inducer NN O O
of NN O O
SWS NN O O
was NN O O
proposed NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
performed NN O O
the NN O O
corollary NN O O
experiment NN O O
whereby NN O O
the NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
GHRH NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
antagonized NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20-33 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
GHRH NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N-Ac-Tyr NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
D-Arg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
GHRH-29 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
12-h NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
, NN O O
between NN O O
2100 NN O O
and NN O O
0900 NN O O
h. NN O O
An NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

bolus NN O O
of NN O O
GHRH NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
0700 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
GH NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
from NN O O
0700 NN O O
to NN O O
0900 NN O O
h NN O O
to NN O O
document NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
GHRH NN O O
antagonist NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
limited NN O O
montage NN O O
sleep NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
from NN O O
2300 NN O O
to NN O O
0700 NN O O
h NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
admission NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
chemiluminometric NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
GHRH NN O O
antagonist NN O O
was NN O O
validated NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
by NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
93+/-1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.012 NN O O
) NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
GHRH NN O O
bolus NN O O
. NN O O

Polysomnography NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
SWS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
when NN O O
saline NN O O
and NN O O
GHRH NN O O
antagonist NN O O
nights NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.607 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
other NN O O
quantifiable NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
endogenous NN O O
GHRH NN O O
is NN O O
indispensable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
secretion NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
genesis NN O O
of NN O O
SWS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15541087)

Pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
17-valerate NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
seborrhoeic NN O O
dermatitis NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Seborrhoeic NN O O
dermatitis NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
chronic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
disease NN O O
with NN O O
remissions NN O O
and NN O O
exacerbations NN O O
, NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
erythema NN O O
, NN O O
scaling NN O O
and NN O O
pruritus NN O O
primarily NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
, NN O O
scalp NN O O
and NN O O
chest NN O O
. NN O O

Corticosteroids NN O O
and NN O O
antifungals NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
mainstay NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
chronic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
side-effects NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
skin NN O O
atrophy NN O O
and NN O O
telangiectasia NN O O
. NN O O

Pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
calcineurin NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
successfully NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
seborrhoeic NN O O
dermatitis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
betamethasone NN O I-INT
17-valerate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
seborrhoeic NN O O
dermatitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
seborrhoeic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
betamethasone NN O I-INT
17-valerate NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
a NN O O
thin NN O O
layer NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
products NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
lesional NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
discontinue NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
soon NN O O
as NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
absent NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
measures NN O O
assessed NN O O
were NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
scaling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
four-point NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
0-3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
and NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
seborrhoeic NN O O
dermatitis NN O O
. NN O O

Betamethasone NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
scaling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
reduction NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Relapses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
with NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
pruritus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
beyond NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
appears NN O O
that NN O O
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
excellent NN O O
alternative NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modality NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
seborrhoeic NN O O
dermatitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15571828)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
abciximab NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
STEMI NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
recanalization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
infarct-related NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
reperfusion NN O I-OUT
- NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Austrian NN O I-PAR
multi-centre NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
ReoPro-BRIDGING NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ReoPro-BRIDGING NN O I-PAR
Austrian NN O I-PAR
multi-centre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
abciximab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ReoPro NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
reperfusion NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ST-elevation NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
or NN O O
during NN O O
primary NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pPCI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
start NN O I-PAR
abciximab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.25 NN O I-PAR
mg/kg NN O I-PAR
bolus NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
microg/min NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
organization NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
pPCI NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=28 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
immediately NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
pPCI NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
time NN O O
between NN O O
first NN O O
bolus NN O O
of NN O O
abciximab NN O I-INT
and NN O O
first NN O O
balloon NN O O
inflation NN O O
of NN O O
pPCI NN O O
was NN O O
83+/-18 NN O O
vs NN O O
21+/-13 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
vs NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pre-pPCI NN O I-OUT
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
55+/-21.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
42.4+/-18.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TIMI NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.042 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
corrected NN O O
TIMI NN O I-OUT
frame NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
58.4+/-32.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
78.9+/-28.4 NN O O
frame NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
76.3 NN O O
/63.5-100/ NN O O
vs NN O O
100 NN O O
/73.5-100/ NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O O
/interquartile NN O O
range/ NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
vs NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O O
myocardial NN O O
dye NN O O
intensity NN O O
measurement NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
grade NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
/0-9.25/ NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
/0-3.0/ NN O O
grey NN O O
pixel NN O O
unit NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
before NN O O
pPCI NN O O
. NN O O

Rapid NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CK NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
210+/-209 NN O O
vs NN O O
97+/-95 NN O O
U/l/h NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

QRS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O O
infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
4.8+/-3.8 NN O O
vs NN O O
7.6+/-3.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
abciximab NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
organization NN O O
phase NN O O
for NN O O
pPCI NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
recanalization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
infarct-related NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O O
improved NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
reperfusion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15591756)

Dual-task-related NN O O
gait NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
transitionally NN O I-PAR
frail NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
walking-associated NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
matters NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
gait NN O O
patterns NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
simultaneously NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
previously NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
falling NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
while NN O O
walking NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
concerning NN O O
possible NN O O
gait NN O O
interference NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
fall-prone NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
quantify NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
cognitive NN O O
tasks NN O O
on NN O O
gait NN O O
in NN O O
transitionally NN O I-PAR
frail NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Gait NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
transitionally NN O I-PAR
frail NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
82.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
while NN O O
either NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
performing NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
simple NN O I-OUT
arithmetic NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
performing NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
fluency NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
seconds NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
steps NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lateral NN O I-OUT
line NN O I-OUT
stepping-over NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stops NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
standard NN O O
instruments NN O O
of NN O O
geriatric NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
classification NN O O
of NN O O
Speechley NN O O
and NN O O
Tinetti NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
frailty NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Walking NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
steps NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
under NN O O
both NN O O
dual-task NN O O
conditions NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
walking NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
reaching NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
dual-task NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.131 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.407 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
lateral NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
instability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
lateral NN O O
line NN O O
stepping-over NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
counting NN O O
backward NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
verbal NN O O
fluency NN O O
task NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Among NN O O
the NN O O
studied NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
transitional NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
walking- NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
arithmetic NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
interfered NN O O
with NN O O
lateral NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
lateral NN O O
gait NN O O
deviations NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
fluency NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
attention-splitting NN O O
task NN O O
in NN O O
dual-task NN O O
gait NN O O
assessment NN O O
among NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
must NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
carefully NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15603203)

Histamine NN O I-PAR
intolerance-like NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
oral NN O O
provocation NN O O
with NN O O
liquid NN O O
histamine NN O O
. NN O O

Histamine NN O O
in NN O O
food NN O O
at NN O O
non-toxic NN O O
doses NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
intolerance NN O O
causing NN O O
symptoms NN O O
like NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
, NN O O
hypotension NN O O
, NN O O
headache NN O O
, NN O O
pruritus NN O O
and NN O O
flush NN O O
( NN O O
histamine NN O O
intolerance NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Histamine-rich NN O O
foods NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
cheese NN O O
, NN O O
sausages NN O O
, NN O O
sauerkraut NN O O
, NN O O
tuna NN O O
, NN O O
tomatoes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
alcoholic NN O O
beverages NN O O
may NN O O
contain NN O O
histamine NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
500 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
22-36 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
29.1 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
5.4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
challenged NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
peppermint NN O I-INT
tea NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pure NN O I-INT
histamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
equaling NN O I-PAR
124 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
histamine NN O I-PAR
dihydrochloride NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dissolved NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
peppermint NN O I-PAR
tea NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Objective NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
skin NN O O
temperature NN O O
, NN O O
peak NN O O
flow NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptom NN O O
score NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
protocol NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
histamine-free NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
also NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
allergen NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
histamine NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
histamine-degrading NN O O
enzyme NN O O
diamine NN O O
oxidase NN O O
( NN O O
DAO NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
histamine NN O O
challenge NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
subjects NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
individual NN O O
experienced NN O O
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sneezing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rhinorrhea NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Four NN O O
subjects NN O O
experienced NN O O
delayed NN O O
symptoms NN O O
like NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4x NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
flatulence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3x NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3x NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2x NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1x NN O O
) NN O O
starting NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
provocation NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
subject NN O O
reacted NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
histamine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DAO NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
80 NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
non-reactors NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
reactors NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
challenge NN O O
with NN O O
histamine NN O O
versus NN O O
challenge NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
pure NN O O
liquid NN O O
oral NN O O
histamine NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
meals NN O O
-- NN O O
can NN O O
provoke NN O O
immediate NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
delayed NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
food NN O I-PAR
intolerance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15642753)

A NN O O
home NN O I-INT
visiting NN O I-INT
asthma NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
challenges NN O O
to NN O O
program NN O O
implementation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nurse NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visiting NN O I-INT
asthma NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O O
lessons NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
achievement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
objectives NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
predicted NN O O
by NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
father NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
surrogate NN O I-OUT
father NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
household NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
neighborhood NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
by NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
implied NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
prescribed NN O O
asthma NN O O
medication NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Incompatibility NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
scheduling NN O O
needs NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
families NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
nurse NN O O
home NN O O
visitors NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
obstacle NN O O
in NN O O
delivering NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
on NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
flexibility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nurse NN O O
home NN O O
visitors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
future NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
asthma NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
contain NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
limited NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
add NN O O
telephone NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
and NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
broader NN O O
needs NN O O
of NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
function NN O O
as NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
program NN O O
success NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15652441)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
steady-state NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
once-a-day NN O O
controlled-release NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MS NN O O
Contin NN O O
XL NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
once-daily NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OAD NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
12-hourly NN O O
formulation NN O O
( NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
CR NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multi-centered NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Chronic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=25 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
OAD NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
238 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
319 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
q24h NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
twice-daily NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
119 NN O O
+/- NN O O
159 NN O O
mg NN O O
q12h NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
then NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
alternate NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
also NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
evaluations NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
CR NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.0108 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
on NN O O
OAD NN O O
morphine NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
chose NN O O
once-daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
for NN O O
continuing NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
100.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
equivalent NN O O
absorption NN O O
. NN O O

Fluctuation NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
93.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
179.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
41.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
OAD NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
CR NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

OAD NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
CR NN O O
morphine NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
fluctuation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
stable NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15656360)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
naphcon NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
during NN O O
Lasik NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Naphcon NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
conjunctival NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
Lasik NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
treating NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
randomly NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
using NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
using NN O O
Naphcon NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
before NN O O
Lasik NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Treating NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
Naphcon NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
during NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
treating NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Naphcon NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drop NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
agent NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
conjunctival NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15673098)

Skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
total NN O O
creatine NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
creatine NN O O
transporter NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
vegetarians NN O I-PAR
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
creatine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vegetarianism NN O O
on NN O O
skeletal NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TCr NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
creatine NN O I-OUT
transporter NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CreaT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
5 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
Cr NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CrS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O I-PAR
vegetarians NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VEG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nonvegetarians NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NVEG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
Cr NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
for NN O O
5 NN O O
d NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Muscle NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
occurred NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
ingestion NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
TCr NN O I-OUT
content NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
VEG NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
NVEG NN O O
. NN O O

Muscle NN O I-OUT
TCr NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
Cr NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
VEG NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
NVEG NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

CreaT NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
VEG NN O O
and NN O O
NVEG NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
VEG NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
TCr NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
capacity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
load NN O O
Cr NN O I-INT
into NN O O
muscle NN O O
following NN O O
CrS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Muscle NN O I-OUT
CreaT NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
vegetarianism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15689088)

Immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reactogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
diphtheria-tetanus-acellular NN O O
pertussis-hepatitis NN O O
B-inactivated NN O O
polio NN O O
and NN O O
Haemophilus NN O O
influenzae NN O O
type NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
to NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
primed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
diphtheria-tetanus-acellular NN O I-OUT
pertussis-hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B-inactivated NN O I-OUT
poliovirus-Haemophilus NN O I-OUT
influenzae NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
b NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DTPa-HBV-IPV-Hib NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
immunization NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
primed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One-half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
150 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
full-term NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
DTPa NN O I-INT
HBV-IPV-Hib NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
1/2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
age NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
DTPa-IPV-Hib NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
1/2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
age NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
separate NN O I-INT
HBV NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
age NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Immune NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
seroprotected NN O O
for NN O O
HBV NN O O
, NN O O
diphtheria NN O O
, NN O O
tetanus NN O O
, NN O O
Hib NN O O
and NN O O
poliovirus NN O O
types NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
diseases NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O O
vaccination NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
vaccinee NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DTPa NN O O
HBV-HPV- NN O O
Hib NN O O
group NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
poliovirus NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
antigen NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
pertussis NN O O
antigens NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
92-97 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DTPa-IPV-Hib NN O O
plus NN O O
separate NN O O
HBV NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DTPa NN O O
HBV-IPV-Hib NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
post-vaccination NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
DTPa-IPV-Hib NN O O
plus NN O O
separate NN O O
HBV NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
axillary NN O O
temperature NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=37.5 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DTPa NN O O
HBV- NN O O
IPV-Hib NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15774238)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nutritional NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
selenium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
c NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
coenzyme NN O I-INT
Q10 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormonally NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nutritional NN O O
supplement NN O O
containing NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
selenium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
and NN O O
coenzyme NN O I-INT
Q10 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormonally NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
rising NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
supplement NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
selenium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
coenzyme NN O I-INT
Q10 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
over NN O O
21 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
, NN O O
-1 NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
log NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dihydrotestosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
luteinizing NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
21 NN O O
weeks NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
verum NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Seventy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
verum NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Compliance NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
selenium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coenzyme NN O I-OUT
Q10 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
21 NN O O
weeks NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dihydrotestosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
luteinizing NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
selenium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
and NN O O
coenzyme-Q10 NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormonally NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15798610)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
and NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
urokinase NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intravenous NN O I-INT
fibrinolysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
rt-PA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
alteplase NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
significant NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
ischaemic NN O O
stroke NN O O
when NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
given NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
three NN O O
hours NN O O
following NN O O
stroke NN O O
onset NN O O
. NN O O

Intra-arterial NN O I-INT
fibrinolysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IAF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pro-urokinase NN O I-INT
in NN O O
PROACT NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
quite NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

IVF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
IAF NN O I-INT
have NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
IVF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
IAF NN O I-INT
with NN O O
urokinase NN O O
given NN O O
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
fulfilling NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
selection NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
urokinase NN O I-INT
900,000 NN O O
units NN O O
via NN O O
intravenous NN O O
or NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
routes NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomised NN O O
monocentre NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
between NN O O
December NN O O
1995 NN O O
and NN O O
August NN O O
1997 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
Rankin NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
intracranial NN O I-OUT
haemorrhage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SIH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
IAF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Health NN O O
Authorities NN O O
when NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mortality NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seven NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
died NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IV NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
oedematous NN O O
infarct NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
recurrence NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
SIH NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
oedematous NN O O
infarct NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
given NN O O
IVF NN O I-INT
were NN O O
treated NN O O
significantly NN O O
earlier NN O O
( NN O O
4:16 NN O O
h NN O O
vs NN O O
5:24 NN O O
h NN O O
; NN O O
p=.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
IA NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
and NN O O
earlier NN O O
improvement NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O O
termination NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
too NN O O
small NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
any NN O O
reliable NN O O
and NN O O
conclusive NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Intra-arterial NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
began NN O O
significantly NN O O
later NN O O
than NN O O
IV NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
gave NN O O
non-significantly NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
prematurely NN O O
terminated NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15816106)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
epidermal NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tumor NN O O
differentiation NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
accelerated NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
DAHANCA NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
treatment NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
has NN O O
increased NN O O
locoregional NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HNSCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
is NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
. NN O O

EGFr NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
overexpressed NN O O
in NN O O
HNSCC NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
repopulation NN O O
taking NN O O
place NN O O
during NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EGFr NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
histopathological NN O I-OUT
differentiation NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
radiotherapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
moderately NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
representative NN O I-PAR
pretreatment NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
DAHANCA NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
fx/wk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
EGFr NN O O
was NN O O
visualized NN O O
using NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
and NN O O
separated NN O O
into NN O O
high NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
expression NN O O
before NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Tumors NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
EGFr NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
responded NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
to NN O O
moderately NN O O
accelerated NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
carcinomas NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
EGFr NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
locoregional NN O O
control NN O O
as NN O O
endpoint NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
pattern NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
, NN O O
stratifying NN O O
by NN O O
well/moderate NN O O
vs. NN O O
poor NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
differentiation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
parameter NN O O
was NN O O
constructed NN O O
showing NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
prominent NN O I-OUT
separation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
EGFr NN O O
and NN O O
well/moderate NN O O
differentiation NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
moderate NN O O
acceleration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
regarding NN O O
locoregional NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
HR NN O O
0.54 NN O O
( NN O O
0.37-0.78 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
such NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
tumors NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
EGFr NN O O
and/or NN O O
poor NN O O
differentiation NN O O
, NN O O
HR NN O O
0.8 NN O O
( NN O O
0.51-1.25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
reflected NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
multivariable NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Moderately NN O O
accelerated NN O O
fractionation NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
conventional NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HNSCC NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
predicted NN O O
by NN O O
high NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EGFr NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well/moderate NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
differentiation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15818697)

Evidence NN O O
of NN O O
radiographic NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
improvement NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
detailed NN O O
subanalysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
anti-tumor NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
with NN O O
concomitant NN O O
therapy NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
joint NN O O
destruction NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
54 NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
or NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Anti-Tumor NN O O
Necrosis NN O O
Factor NN O O
Trial NN O O
in NN O O
RA NN O O
with NN O O
Concomitant NN O O
Therapy NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
week NN O O
54 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
American NN O I-OUT
College NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Rheumatology NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
) NN O O
while NN O O
receiving NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
exhibited NN O O
mild NN O O
but NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
28-joint NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DAS28 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
tender NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
swollen NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
CRP NN O O
changes NN O O
among NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
to NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
were NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
much NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
among NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
responders NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
to NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
inhibited NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
to NN O O
MTX NN O O
plus NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Radiographic NN O O
progression NN O O
was NN O O
much NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
infliximab NN O O
plus NN O O
MTX NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
ACR NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
Sharp/van NN O I-OUT
der NN O I-OUT
Heijde NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
6.0 NN O O
in NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
responders NN O O
and NN O O
7.2 NN O O
in NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
0.1 NN O O
in NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
responders NN O O
and NN O O
1.2 NN O O
in NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MTX-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
ACR20 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
through NN O O
week NN O O
54 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
DAS NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
54 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
individual NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
still NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
structural NN O O
damage NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
inhibition NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
to NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Even NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
destructive NN O O
process NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
are NN O O
dissociated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15830983)

Disc NN O I-INT
coablation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mechanical NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
discogenic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
two NN O O
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Mechanical NN O O
Spinal NN O O
Discogenic NN O O
Pain NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
: NN O O
Disc NN O I-INT
Coablation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Epidural NN O I-INT
Injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Steroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
ad NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disc NN O I-INT
coablation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
indicated NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
relaxed NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
after NN O O
slight-moderate NN O O
strain NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
value NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
after NN O O
coablation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
clearly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
coablation NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1584317)

Calcium NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
as NN O O
phosphate NN O O
binders NN O O
in NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
unblinded NN O O
parallel NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
acetate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
carbonate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
basis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
acceptable NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
phosphorus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
P NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aluminum NN O I-PAR
hydroxide NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
dialyzed NN O I-PAR
against NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
calcium NN O I-INT
dialyzate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.62 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
serum NN O O
analytical NN O O
tests NN O O
included NN O O
: NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PTH NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
molecule NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bicarbonate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
periods NN O O
: NN O O
P0 NN O O
: NN O O
baseline NN O O
measurements NN O O
; NN O O
P1 NN O O
: NN O O
washout NN O O
( NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
AH NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P2 NN O O
: NN O O
random NN O O
allocation NN O O
to NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CC NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
75 NN O O
mEq NN O O
of NN O O
elemental NN O O
calcium NN O O
, NN O O
stratified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
AH NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P3 NN O O
: NN O O
adjustment NN O O
of NN O O
doses NN O O
until NN O O
control NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CA NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
poorly NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
CC NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
P0 NN O O
and NN O O
P2 NN O O
periods NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
1.73 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.25 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.80 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.50 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.26 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
1.77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.35 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.93 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.48 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
, NN O O
paired NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
hardly NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
CA NN O O
( NN O O
2.42 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.20 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.47 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.17 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
; NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CC NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
rose NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
2.40 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.12 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.55 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.22 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
PTH NN O O
or NN O O
bicarbonate NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (15848979)

Treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
appliance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
temporomandibular NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myofascial NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
stabilization NN O I-INT
appliance NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
T NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
appliance NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
temporomandibular NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TMD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myofascial NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myofascial NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stabilization NN O I-INT
appliance NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
appliance NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
then NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
demand NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Seventeen NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
requested NN O O
another NN O O
appliance NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
stabilization NN O I-INT
appliance NN O I-INT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
creating NN O O
a NN O O
mixed NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
M NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
T NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
compliance NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
T NN O O
and NN O O
C. NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
6- NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
myofascial NN O I-OUT
pain NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myofascial NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
T NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tender NN O I-OUT
sites NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
masticatory NN O I-OUT
muscles NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
T NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
conclusion NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
stabilization NN O I-INT
appliance NN O I-INT
to NN O O
alleviate NN O O
the NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myofascial NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
persisted NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
T NN O O
and NN O O
M NN O O
reported NN O O
positive NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
recommend NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stabilization NN O I-INT
appliance NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
TMD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myofascial NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15886667)

Racial NN O I-INT
differences NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
repeat NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
extremity NN O I-INT
amputation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
multihospital NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
above- NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
below-knee NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
amputation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
limb-preserving NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
than NN O O
white NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
article NN O O
analyzes NN O O
two NN O O
potential NN O O
pathways NN O O
for NN O O
racial NN O O
disparities NN O O
: NN O O
primary NN O O
amputation NN O O
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
amputation NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
prior NN O O
attempt NN O O
at NN O O
revascularization NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
repeat NN O O
amputation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
amputation NN O I-INT
subsequent NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
through-foot NN O O
or NN O O
major NN O O
amputation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-INT
records NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
reviewed NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
248 NN O I-INT
African NN O I-INT
American NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
Hispanic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
235 NN O I-INT
white NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
other-race NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
undergoing NN O I-INT
above- NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
below-knee NN O I-INT
amputation NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
1995 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2003 NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
Chicago NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
hospitals NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Chronic NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
prevalence NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
severity NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
preadmission NN O I-INT
functional NN O I-INT
status NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
presentation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vascular NN O I-INT
history NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
risk-adjusted NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
race NN O O
and NN O O
ethnicity NN O O
on NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
repeat NN O I-OUT
amputation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Controlling NN O O
for NN O O
demographic NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O O
, NN O O
chronic NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
African NN O O
American NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
1.7 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
undergone NN O O
both NN O O
primary NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
repeat NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
amputation NN O I-INT
than NN O O
white NN O O
or NN O O
other-race NN O O
amputees NN O O
. NN O O

Race NN O O
remained NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
illness NN O O
, NN O O
greater NN O O
disability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
complex NN O O
presentation NN O O
of NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
amputees NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Higher NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
repeat NN O I-OUT
amputation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
African NN O O
American NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
hospitals NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
all NN O O
have NN O O
significant NN O O
vascular NN O O
surgery NN O O
capacity NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
aggressive NN O O
policy NN O O
of NN O O
limb NN O O
salvage NN O O
, NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
rates NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
even NN O O
higher NN O O
at NN O O
less NN O O
well NN O O
equipped NN O O
institutions NN O O
. NN O O

Improving NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
preventive NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
lower-income NN O O
patients NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
amputation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
African NN O O
Americans NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15914517)

Are NN O O
brand-name NN O O
and NN O O
generic NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
interchangeable NN O O
? NN O O
Multiple NN O O
n-of-1 NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Warfarin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
in NN O O
North NN O O
America NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
generic NN O O
formulations NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
approved NN O O
, NN O O
raising NN O O
concern NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
products NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
brand-name NN O O
Coumadin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
ensure NN O O
that NN O O
generic NN O O
warfarin NN O O
products NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O O
interchanged NN O O
with NN O O
Coumadin NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Multiple NN O O
n-of-1 NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trials NN O O
switched NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O O
a NN O O
generic NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Apo-warfarin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Coumadin NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Study NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
3-week NN O I-PAR
periods NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
international NN O I-OUT
normalized NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
INR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-PAR
taken NN O I-PAR
twice NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Inter- NN O O
and NN O O
intrapatient NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
generic NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Coumadin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
study NN O O
patient NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Coumadin NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
warfarin NN O O
products NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
INR NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dosage NN O I-OUT
adjustments NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
also NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
INR NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
warfarin NN O O
formulation NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.69 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
warfarin NN O O
interaction NN O O
found NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.81 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
INR NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
whether NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
on NN O O
Coumadin NN O O
only NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
interchanged NN O O
between NN O O
Coumadin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
generic NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.98 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
appears NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
can NN O O
safely NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectively NN O I-OUT
switch NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
generic NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Coumadin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15943172)

A NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
gives NN O O
substantial NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
describe NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
short-term NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
reducing NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
Body NN O I-PAR
Mass NN O I-PAR
Index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
62 NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
From NN O O
an NN O O
obesity NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
waiting NN O I-PAR
list NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
or NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
waiting NN O O
list NN O O
to NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
weighed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
outset NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
directly NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
6- NN O O
, NN O O
12- NN O O
and NN O O
18-month NN O O
post-treatment NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
booster NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
after NN O O
the NN O O
10-week NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
the NN O O
34 NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
treatment NN O O
's NN O O
end NN O O
was NN O O
8.5 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
SD=16.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
their NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.4 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
SD=10.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
n=31.72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
2.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
SD=7.0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
18-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
acceptable NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
nearly NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
10-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
program NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
weight NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
was NN O O
nearly NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
at NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
contention NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
lengthy NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
obesity NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
if NN O O
treatment NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
lasting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15960694)

Just-in-time NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
e-mail NN O O
reminders NN O O
in NN O O
home NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
: NN O O
impact NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
nurse NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
interventions NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
adoption NN O O
of NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
practices NN O O
by NN O O
home NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
caring NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DATA NN O O
SOURCES/STUDY NN O O
SETTING NN O O
Information NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
nurse NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
abstracted NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
records NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
354 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nonprofit NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
agency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
employed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
nurses NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
or NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
upon NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
eligible NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
basic NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
one-time NN O I-INT
e-mail NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
highlighting NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
HF-specific NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
augmented NN O O
intervention NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O I-INT
e-mail NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
provider NN O I-INT
prompts NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
material NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
outreach NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DATA NN O O
COLLECTION NN O O
At NN O O
each NN O O
home NN O O
health NN O O
visit NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
nurse NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
eligible NN O O
HF NN O O
patient NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
45-day NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O O
chart NN O O
abstraction NN O O
tool NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
collect NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
nurse NN O O
provided NN O O
the NN O O
care NN O O
practices NN O O
highlighted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
e-mail NN O O
reminder NN O O
. NN O O

PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
Both NN O O
the NN O O
basic NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
augmented NN O O
interventions NN O O
greatly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
practice NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
evidence-based NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O O
records NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
assessment NN O O
and NN O O
instructions NN O O
about NN O O
HF NN O O
disease NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
at NN O O
conventional NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
intervention NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
positive NN O O
in NN O O
virtually NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
magnitudes NN O I-OUT
frequently NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
large NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
strongly NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
just-in-time NN O I-OUT
evidence-based NN O I-OUT
reminders NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
changing NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
among NN O O
home NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
are NN O O
geographically NN O O
dispersed NN O O
and NN O O
spend NN O O
much NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
field NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15965438)

Montelukast NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
4-week NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
59 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
orally NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
leukotriene NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
montelukast NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16027809)

Simvastatin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
preparation NN O O
of NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
phospholipids NN O I-INT
produce NN O O
similar NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
phospholipid NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
high-density NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
during NN O O
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
phospholipid NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
high-density NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
simvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Zocor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
inhibitor NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
key NN O I-PAR
enzyme NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
synthesis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
preparation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
polyunsaturated NN O I-PAR
phospholipids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lipostabil NN O I-INT
forte NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Simvastatin NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
a NN O O
hypolipidemic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
modulates NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
phospholipid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoproteins NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
similarly NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
lipostabil NN O I-OUT
forte NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
changes NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoproteins NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
transport NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16037751)

Determinants NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
estrogen NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
subclinical NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
Estrogen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
Atherosclerosis NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
estrogen-induced NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
lipids NN O O
and NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
metabolism NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
estrogen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
trial NN O O
enrolling NN O O
222 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low-density NN O I-PAR
lipoprotein NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LDL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3.37 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O O
was NN O O
unopposed NN O I-INT
micronized NN O I-INT
17beta-estradiol NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
using NN O O
high-resolution NN O O
B-mode NN O I-INT
ultrasonography NN O I-INT
to NN O O
measure NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
on-trial NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Progression NN O O
of NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
on-trial NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
directly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
on-trial NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
women NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
estradiol NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
mean NN O O
on-trial NN O O
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
mean NN O O
on-trial NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
A1C NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lowered NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
estradiol NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
carotid NN O O
IMT NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

On-trial NN O O
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significant NN O O
independent NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
progression NN O O
, NN O O
jointly NN O O
explaining NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
unopposed NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Unopposed NN O I-INT
17beta-estradiol NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
progression NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
part NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreasing NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
estradiol NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
metabolism NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
factors NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
progression NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16079640)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
peripheral NN O O
vasodilatation NN O O
of NN O O
forearm NN O O
resistance NN O O
vessels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Improved NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
lowering NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
statin NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
are NN O O
disparate NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
established NN O O
CAD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
or NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
forearm NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
CAD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angiographically NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
pretreatment NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5.1+/-0.9 NN O I-PAR
mmol/l NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
42-75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mild NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
endothelium-dependent NN O O
and NN O O
independent NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
of NN O O
forearm NN O O
resistance NN O O
vessels NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
plethysmography NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
testing NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Ten NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
3.8+/-0.6 NN O O
to NN O O
3.1+/-0.6 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
4.9+/-0.8 NN O O
to NN O O
3.7+/-0.7 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
modify NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
workload NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
training NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pravastatin-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
nor NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
endothelium-dependent NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
vasomotor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
vessels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
or NN O O
with NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
failed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
endothelium-dependent NN O O
or NN O O
independent NN O O
vasomotor NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
forearm NN O O
resistance NN O O
vessels NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16083628)

[ NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperhomocysteinemia NN O O
and NN O O
endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
renal-transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
vitamin NN O O
B NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
B NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperhomocysteinemia NN O O
and NN O O
endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
renal-transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
hyperhomocysteinemic NN O I-PAR
renal-transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
microg/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
high-resolution NN O O
vascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
homocysteine NN O O
markedly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
micromol/L NN O O
vs NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
micromol/L NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
5.3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
endothelium NN O O
dependent NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
2.9 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
independent NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
3.4 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
vasodilatation NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B. NN O O
Endothelium NN O O
dependent NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
2.8 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
independent NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
3.5 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
vasodilatation NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Vitamin NN O O
B NN O O
supplementation NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
homocysteine NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
hyperhomocysteinemic NN O I-PAR
renal-transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16128933)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
on NN O O
nighttime NN O O
heartburn NN O O
and NN O O
sleep NN O O
quality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GERD NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Sleep NN O O
disturbances NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GERD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
on NN O O
nighttime NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GERD-related NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
regular NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
included NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GERD-associated NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
moderate-to-severe NN O I-OUT
nighttime NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
recorded NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
diary NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
220 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
226 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
229 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
nighttime NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Pittsburgh NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PSQI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Work NN O I-OUT
Productivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Impairment NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Nighttime NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
relieved NN O O
in NN O O
53.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
111/209 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
50.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
111/220 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
28/221 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
were NN O O
40.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
32.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
48.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
37.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
29.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
45.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GERD-related NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
resolved NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
40 NN O O
( NN O O
73.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
73.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
41.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
PSQI NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
work NN O O
hours NN O O
saved NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
11.6 NN O O
h NN O O
; NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
12.3 NN O O
h NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
6.2 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Esomeprazole NN O O
reduced NN O O
nighttime NN O O
heartburn NN O O
and NN O O
GERD-related NN O O
sleep NN O O
disturbances NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
sleep NN O O
quality NN O O
and NN O O
work NN O O
productivity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16137240)

Randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
open NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Postoperative NN O I-INT
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
open NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
breathing NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
and NN O O
secretion NN O I-INT
clearing NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
standardised NN O I-INT
physiotherapist-directed NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
of NN O O
early NN O O
mobilisation NN O O
improved NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
mobilisation-only NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
mobilisation-plus-deep NN O I-INT
breathing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
coughing NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mobility NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
quantified NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-INT
outcomes NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
blinded NN O I-INT
outcomes NN O I-INT
researcher NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standardised NN O I-INT
outcomes NN O I-INT
measurement NN O I-INT
tool NN O I-INT
developed NN O I-INT
specifically NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
population NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcomes NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
restoration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anaesthetic NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
enrolled NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-deep NN O O
breathing NN O O
and NN O O
coughing NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
deep NN O O
breathing NN O O
and NN O O
coughing NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
absolute NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
-3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
C1 NN O O
-22 NN O O
to NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physiotherapist NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
clinical NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
breathing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
coughing NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
physiotherapist-directed NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
mobilisation NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16167251)

[ NN O O
Usage NN O O
of NN O O
titanoreine NN O I-INT
after NN O O
procedure NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
prolapse NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
titanoreine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
after NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
prolapse NN O O
and NN O O
hemorrhoids NN O O
( NN O O
PPH NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
PPH NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
in NN O O
to NN O O
titanoreine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=42 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
titanoreine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=38 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Symptom NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
PPH NN O O
, NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
24h NN O O
after NN O O
PPH NN O O
, NN O O
first NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
titanoreine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
4.4 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
) NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
PPH NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
PPH NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Decrements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
titanoreine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
point NN O O
after NN O O
PPH NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Titanoreine NN O I-INT
can NN O O
effectively NN O O
relieve NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
after NN O O
PPH NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16208798)

Single-use NN O O
plaque NN O O
removal NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
power NN O I-INT
toothbrushes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
oscillating/rotating/pulsating NN O I-INT
toothbrushes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Oral-B NN O I-INT
ProfessionalCare NN O I-INT
7000 NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PC NN O I-INT
7000 NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Oral-B NN O I-INT
3D NN O I-INT
Excel NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
3DE NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
high-frequency NN O I-INT
toothbrush NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Sonicare NN O I-INT
Advance NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Philips NN O I-INT
Oral NN O I-INT
Healthcare NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
SA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
single-use NN O O
, NN O O
examiner-blind NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
period NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
After NN O I-PAR
refraining NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
hygiene NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
23-25 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
pre-brushing NN O O
whole NN O O
mouth NN O O
mean NN O O
plaque NN O O
scores NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.6 NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Rustogi NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

Modified NN O O
Navy NN O O
Plaque NN O O
Index NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
sequence NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
brushing NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
assigned NN O O
toothbrush NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
commercially NN O O
available NN O O
dentifrice NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
tissues NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
then NN O I-OUT
re-examined NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-brushing NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Following NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
additional NN O O
visits NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
procedures NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
alternate NN O O
toothbrushes NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
examiner NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
sequence NN O O
, NN O O
performed NN O O
all NN O O
clinical NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
toothbrush NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
brushing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PC NN O O
7000 NN O O
and NN O O
3DE NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
SA NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
tooth NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
reducing NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
59.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
59.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
51.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
on NN O O
whole NN O O
mouth NN O O
surfaces NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
67.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
67.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
59.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
on NN O O
approximal NN O O
surfaces NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
oscillating/rotating/pulsating NN O O
toothbrushes NN O O
( NN O O
Oral-B NN O O
ProfessionalCare NN O O
7000 NN O O
and NN O O
Oral-B NN O O
3D NN O O
Excel NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
plaque NN O O
removal NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
high-frequency NN O O
toothbrush NN O O
( NN O O
Sonicare NN O O
Advance NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16220761)

Adhesion-prevention NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
sealants NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
myomectomy NN O I-INT
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
second-look NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
adhesion NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2 NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
sealant NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
myomectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
Canadian NN O I-PAR
Task NN O I-PAR
Force NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
University-affiliated NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
minimal NN O I-PAR
myoma NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
excluding NN O I-PAR
pedunculated NN O I-PAR
myomas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
LM NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fibrin NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fibrin NN O I-INT
sheet NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
LM NN O O
, NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
adhesions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
second-look NN O I-OUT
laparoscopy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
adhesions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
adhesions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
uterus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
20/32 NN O O
( NN O O
62.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
10/29 NN O O
( NN O O
34.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
20/30 NN O O
( NN O O
67.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
sheet NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
de NN O I-OUT
novo NN O I-OUT
adnexal NN O I-OUT
adhesions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
4/32 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
2/29 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
6.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
5/30 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
16.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fibrin NN O O
sheet NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
bilateral NN O I-OUT
adnexal NN O I-OUT
adhesions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
After NN O O
LM NN O O
for NN O O
myomas NN O O
as NN O O
large NN O O
as NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
cm NN O O
, NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
adhesions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
after NN O O
LM NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16223394)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
double-injection NN O O
techniques NN O O
for NN O O
peribulbar NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
infero-temporal NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
supero-medial NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
infero-temporal NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
medial-percaruncular NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Combinations NN O O
of NN O O
infero-temporal NN O O
and NN O O
either NN O O
supero-nasal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
'inferior-superior NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
medial NN O I-INT
percaruncular NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
'inferior-medial NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
are NN O O
popular NN O O
double-injection NN O O
techniques NN O O
for NN O O
establishing NN O O
peribulbar NN O O
block NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
techniques NN O O
in NN O O
achieving NN O O
ocular NN O O
and NN O O
lid NN O O
akinesia NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
inferior-superior NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
inferior-medial NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
injectate NN O O
, NN O O
injectate NN O O
volumes NN O O
, NN O O
5-min NN O O
ocular NN O I-INT
akinesia NN O I-INT
scoring NN O O
( NN O O
0-8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lid NN O I-INT
scoring NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0-2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
supplemental NN O O
injection NN O O
protocols NN O O
were NN O O
standardized NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O O
injections NN O O
required NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
injectate NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
ocular NN O O
and NN O O
lid NN O O
akinesia NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
test NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
demographically NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
inferior-medial NN O O
combination NN O O
achieved NN O O
greater NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
akinesia NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
inferior-superior NN O O
combination NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
injections NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
score NN O O
+/- NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
1.74 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.86 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.66 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.39 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
supplementary NN O O
injections NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
23 NN O O
supplementary NN O O
injections NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
inferior-superior NN O O
technique NN O O
achieved NN O O
greater NN O O
lid NN O I-OUT
akinesia NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
inferior-medial NN O O
technique NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
score NN O O
+/- NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
0.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.58 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
medial NN O I-OUT
subconjunctival NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
inferior-medial NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
inferior-superior NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
inferior-medial NN O O
combination NN O O
achieved NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
akinesia NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
less NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
supplementation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
induced NN O O
less NN O O
efficient NN O O
lid NN O O
akinesia NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
propensity NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
iatrogenic NN O I-OUT
subconjunctival NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
latter NN O O
complication NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
by NN O O
our NN O O
surgeons NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
contraindication NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
inferior-medial NN O O
technique NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
trabeculectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1622739)

Clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
intrasplenic NN O O
arterial NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
interleukin-2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IS-IL-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
tried NN O O
a NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
interleukin-2 NN O O
( NN O O
IL-2 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
via NN O O
an NN O O
intrasplenic NN O O
arterial NN O O
catheter NN O O
connected NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
chronometric NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
IS-IL-2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
hepatoma NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
24 NN O O
hour NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
IL-2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mainly NN O O
8 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
JRU/day NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
25-40 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Such NN O O
serious NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
IL-2 NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
of NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O

IS-IL-2 NN O O
therapy NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
12/18 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thrombocythemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12/18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Peripheral NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LAK NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
augmented NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
increased NN O O
during NN O O
IS-IL-2 NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
IL-2 NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
rises NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Leu11 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CD16 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OKM1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CD11 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OKIa1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HLA-DR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Partial NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
unresectable NN O I-OUT
hepatoma NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
11 NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Six NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
evaluable NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
decreasing NN O O
tumor NN O O
cell NN O O
markers NN O O
having NN O O
no NN O O
measurable NN O O
lesions NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
unresectable NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
presumed NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
micrometastases NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
liver NN O O
as NN O O
suggested NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
elevated NN O O
serum NN O O
CEA NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
receiving NN O O
IS-IL-2 NN O O
therapy NN O O
they NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
CEA NN O O
level NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (16238662)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anxiety NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
anxiety NN O I-INT
with NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
second NN O O
interest NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
more NN O O
intensive NN O O
parent NN O O
involvement NN O O
would NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
anxiety NN O O
outside NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Seventy-one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
anxiety NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
accepted NN O O
on NN O O
parent NN O O
report NN O O
via NN O O
brief NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
parent-reported NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
generate NN O O
positive NN O O
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
anxiety-provoking NN O O
situation NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
parent NN O O
involvement NN O O
as NN O O
beneficial NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
AS NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
anxious NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
endorsed NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
programme NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
exhibiting NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
active NN O O
parent NN O O
involvement NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O

Limitations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16253098)

Oral NN O O
health NN O O
impacts NN O O
on NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
protocols NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
health NN O O
impacts NN O O
perceived NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
submitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
association NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
parameters NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
full-mouth NN O I-INT
scaling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
root NN O I-INT
planing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SRP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
test NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
SRP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
systemically NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
test NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
SRP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
professional NN O I-INT
supragingival NN O I-INT
plaque NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
every NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
test NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MET NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
PP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O O
periodontal NN O O
measurements NN O O
and NN O O
data NN O O
regarding NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
impacts NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
impacts NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
gums NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
recession NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
packing NN O I-OUT
foods NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aesthetics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bad NN O I-OUT
breath NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
groups NN O O
presented NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
impacts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
impacts NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
groups NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
different NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
correlated NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
health NN O O
impacts NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Periodontal NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
leads NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
self-perceived NN O I-OUT
impacts NN O I-OUT
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
non-surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
protocol NN O O
employed NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
health NN O O
impacts NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16266472)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
indapamide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
pulse NN O O
wave NN O O
analysis NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diuretic NN O I-INT
indapamide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Informed NN O O
consent NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
by NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
105 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
indapamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Radial NN O O
pulse NN O O
wave NN O O
recordings NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
finished NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
enalapril NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
indapamide NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
values NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
except NN O O
heart NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
augmentation NN O O
index NN O O
in NN O O
indapamide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
values NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
pulse NN O O
wave NN O O
except NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
augmentation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
augmentation NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
indapamide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reduced NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
aorta NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
brachial NN O O
artery NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
indapamide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
indapamide NN O I-INT
are NN O O
both NN O O
similarly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
augmentation NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
indapamide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
difference NN O O
is NN O O
probably NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
wave NN O I-OUT
reflection NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16275661)

Mending NN O O
the NN O O
rhythm NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
prognosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
subanalysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RACE NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
AF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
effective NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
266 NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
RACE NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
turned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-INT
sinus NN O I-INT
rhythm NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
continuously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
anticoagulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
178 NN O O
patients NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
256 NN O I-PAR
rate-control NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
RACE NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
AF NN O O
and NN O O
using NN O O
oral NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
continuously NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
2.3+/-0.6 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thrombo-embolic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TECs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antiarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pacemaker NN O I-OUT
implants NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
22.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rhythm-control NN O O
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
15.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate-control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariable NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
digitalis NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
independent NN O O
risk NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

Chronic NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
matter NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
remained NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
warfarin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
mostly NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
under NN O O
a NN O O
rhythm-control NN O O
strategy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
prognosis NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
AF NN O O
under NN O O
a NN O O
rate-control NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16275814)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
with NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Hyperactivity NN O O
and NN O O
inattention NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
stimulants NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
conditions NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
inconclusive NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
and NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
open-label NN O O
continuation NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Five NN O O
academic NN O O
outpatient NN O O
clinics NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
drug-free NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Prior NN O O
to NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
test-dose NN O O
phase NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
medium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
each NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
medium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
7.5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
to NN O O
50.0 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
in NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
tolerated NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
66 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
3 NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
responding NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
then NN O O
entered NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
open-label NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
individually NN O O
determined NN O O
best NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
teacher-rated NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Response NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
very NN O I-OUT
much NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
item NN O I-OUT
coupled NN O O
with NN O O
considerable NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
parent-rated NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
teacher-rated NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Methylphenidate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
0.20 NN O O
to NN O O
0.54 NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
rater NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-five NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
responders NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Methylphenidate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
often NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16281190)

Single-session NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
earthquake-related NN O I-PAR
posttraumatic NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
waiting NN O O
list NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
disaster NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
session NN O O
of NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
earthquake-related NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
stress NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
earthquake NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Turkey NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
either NN O O
single-session NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SSBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
enhance NN O I-INT
sense NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
earthquake-related NN O I-OUT
fears NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
WL NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
SSBT NN O I-INT
after NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
baseline NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-ups NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1-2 NN O O
years NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
at NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
; NN O O
it NN O O
rose NN O O
to NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
1-2-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Brief NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
has NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
disaster NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16329017)

Virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
colonoscopy NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
compulsory NN O O
practice NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
colonoscopist NN O O
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
STUDY NN O O
AIM NN O O
As NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
manual NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O O
curves NN O O
for NN O O
medical NN O O
interventions NN O O
can NN O O
have NN O O
undesirable NN O O
phases NN O O
, NN O O
occurring NN O O
mostly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
applying NN O O
a NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
impressive NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
procedures NN O O
during NN O O
recent NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
emerging NN O O
trend NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
procedures NN O O
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
programs NN O O
for NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
procedures NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
developments NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
simulation NN O O
seem NN O O
promising NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
out NN O O
undesirable NN O O
parts NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O O
curve NN O O
outside NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
room NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
AccuTouch NN O I-INT
flexible NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
simulator NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
part NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
trainees NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
surgeons NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
gastroenterologists NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
gastroscopy NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-PAR
colonoscopy NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
simulator NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
all NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
theoretical NN O O
study NN O O
package NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
group NN O O
practiced NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
AccuTouch NN O I-INT
colonoscopy NN O I-INT
simulator NN O I-INT
until NN O O
a NN O O
predefined NN O O
expert NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
reached NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
trainees NN O O
performed NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
ten NN O O
individual NN O O
colonoscopies NN O O
described NN O O
in NN O O
detail NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
separate NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Trainees NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
simulator-trained NN O O
group NN O O
performed NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.0011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
managed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cecum NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
vs. NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
4.53 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
succeed NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
hands NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
simulator-trained NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Skills NN O O
acquired NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
AccuTouch NN O O
simulator NN O O
transfer NN O O
well NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
environment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
clearly NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
plan NN O O
to NN O O
integrate NN O O
simulator NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
into NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
education NN O O
curricula NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16343383)

Combined NN O I-INT
typhoid NN O I-INT
fever NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
concomitant NN O O
monovalent NN O O
vaccine NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Viatim NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
typhoid NN O I-INT
fever NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Vi NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
monovalent NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
booster NN O O
dose NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
Viatim NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
179 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
separate NN O I-INT
HA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Vi NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
181 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
subgroups NN O O
were NN O O
boosted NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
with NN O O
Viatim NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Local NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
reactions NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
postvaccination NN O O
. NN O O

Seroconversion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
seroprotection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
postvaccination NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
booster NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Immediate NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
infrequent NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
consisting NN O I-OUT
mostly NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
least NN O O
frequent NN O O
with NN O O
monovalent NN O O
HA NN O O
. NN O O

Antibody NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
both NN O O
antigens NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
HA NN O I-OUT
seroprotection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
mIU/mL NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
98.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
99.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
99.0 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
achieving NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
booster NN O O
. NN O O

Vi NN O I-OUT
seroprotection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
85.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84.9 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
fell NN O O
to NN O O
32.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
35.6 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
to NN O O
67.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
69.8 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
booster NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
HA/Vi NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Viatim NN O I-INT
, NN O O
had NN O O
equivalent NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
rapidly NN O I-OUT
immunogenic NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
its NN O O
component NN O O
monovalent NN O O
vaccines NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
concurrently NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
booster NN O O
dose NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
antibody NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
relative NN O O
hyporesponsiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
typhoid NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16378639)

Wavefront-guided NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
LASIK NN O I-INT
enhancement NN O I-INT
for NN O O
residual NN O O
refractive NN O O
errors NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
predictability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
higher-order NN O I-OUT
aberrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HOAs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
wavefront-guided NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
LASIK NN O I-INT
enhancement NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
correction NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O O
refractive NN O O
errors NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
spherical NN O I-PAR
equivalent NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SE NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
-2.01+/-1.36 NN O I-PAR
diopters NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
wavefront-guided NN O I-INT
Zyoptix NN O I-INT
Ablation NN O I-INT
Refinement NN O I-INT
software NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ZAR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
LASIK NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SE NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
-1.81+/-1.21 NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
Planoscan NN O I-INT
LASIK NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
residual NN O I-PAR
refractive NN O I-PAR
error NN O I-PAR
enhancement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
predictability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HOAs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
enhancement NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Uncorrected NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UCVA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
best-corrected NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
manifest NN O I-OUT
refraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CS NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
means NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O I-OUT
Acuity NN O I-OUT
Contrast NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HOAs NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
means NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Zywave NN O I-OUT
aberrometry NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
retreatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
UCVA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
20/25 NN O O
or NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
1.09 NN O O
for NN O O
ZAR NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
0.95 NN O O
for NN O O
Planoscan NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
eyes NN O I-OUT
lost NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
or NN O O
=1 NN O O
line NN O O
of NN O O
BCVA NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ZAR NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
eyes NN O O
gained NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
line NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
eyes NN O O
gained NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
or NN O O
=2 NN O O
lines NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Planoscan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
eyes NN O O
gained NN O O
1 NN O O
line NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ZAR NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
94.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
0.5-D NN O O
range NN O O
in NN O O
SE NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Planoscan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
88.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
HOA NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
square NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RMS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
1.44 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Planoscan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
change NN O O
or NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HOA NN O I-OUT
RMS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ZAR NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
0.96 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Planoscan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
only NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
spatial NN O O
frequency NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
cycles NN O O
per NN O O
degree NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CS NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HOA NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
Planoscan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ZAR NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.5-18 NN O O
cycles NN O O
per NN O O
degree NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Wavefront-guided NN O I-INT
LASIK NN O I-INT
using NN O O
the NN O O
ZAR NN O O
algorithm NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O O
refractive NN O O
errors NN O O
. NN O O

Wavefront-guided NN O I-INT
LASIK NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
HOAs NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
modify NN O O
CS NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
preoperative NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Wavefront-guided NN O I-INT
LASIK NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
standard NN O O
LASIK NN O I-INT
for NN O O
retreatments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16393600)

Pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
curettage NN O I-INT
and NN O O
electrodesiccation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
nodular NN O I-PAR
basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Curettage NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
electrodesiccation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
nodular NN O I-PAR
basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
in NN O O
approximately NN O O
20 NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Imiquimod NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
modifier NN O O
that NN O O
targets NN O O
Toll-like NN O O
receptor NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
superficial NN O O
BCC NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
vehicle-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
after NN O O
C NN O O
& NN O O
D NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
regimen NN O O
would NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
C NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nodular NN O I-PAR
BCC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
C NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
heal NN O O
and NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
appearance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
substantially NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Wounds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vehicle NN O O
group NN O O
healed NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
quickly NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
imiquimod NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
by NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
excision NN O O
sites NN O O
were NN O O
healed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
scars NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
atrophic NN O O
and NN O O
hypopigmented NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
most NN O O
scars NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
flat NN O O
and NN O O
slightly NN O O
pink NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Imiquimod NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
therapy NN O O
after NN O O
C NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
substantially NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
appearance NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
C NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
adjunctive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16411994)

Does NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
trimester NN O O
dating NN O O
scan NN O O
using NN O O
crown NN O O
rump NN O O
length NN O O
measurement NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
An NN O O
uncompleted NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
463 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
trimester NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-INT
dating NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
include NN O O
400 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SETTING NN O O
Participating NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
district NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
POPULATION NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practitioner NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
confirm NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
ultrasound NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
indicated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Women NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
scan NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
underwent NN O O
an NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-INT
dating NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
measuring NN O I-INT
crown-rump NN O I-INT
length NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
estimated NN O O
date NN O O
of NN O O
delivery NN O O
( NN O O
EDD NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
changed NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
discrepancy NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
gestation NN O O
, NN O O
calculated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
menstrual NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
LMP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
no-scan NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
gestation NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
LMP NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Due NN O O
to NN O O
circumstances NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
researchers NN O O
' NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
recruitment NN O O
was NN O O
abandoned NN O O
when NN O O
463 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
EDD NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
( NN O O
5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
scan NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-scan NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
scan NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
[ NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
no-scan NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
[ NN O O
7.4 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
1.10 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.59-2.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Acknowledging NN O O
the NN O O
reduced NN O O
numbers NN O O
recruited NN O O
for NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
trimester NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-INT
dating NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
expensive NN O O
healthcare NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16413605)

Project NN O I-PAR
Towards NN O I-PAR
No NN O I-PAR
Drug NN O I-PAR
Abuse NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O O
substance NN O O
use NN O O
outcomes NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
paper NN O O
presents NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
post-program NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
Project NN O I-PAR
Towards NN O I-PAR
No NN O I-PAR
Drug NN O I-PAR
Abuse NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Project NN O I-PAR
TND NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
California NN O I-PAR
alternative NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
1994-1999 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
9-session NN O O
health NN O I-INT
motivation NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
decision-making NN O I-INT
curriculum NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
classroom NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
classroom NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
semester-long NN O I-INT
school-as-community NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Last NN O O
30-day NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
cigarettes NN O O
, NN O O
alcohol NN O O
, NN O O
marijuana NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hard NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
time NN O O
intervals NN O O
: NN O O
short-term NN O O
( NN O O
year NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
middle-term NN O O
( NN O O
years NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
( NN O O
years NN O O
4 NN O O
or NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multilevel NN O O
random NN O O
coefficients NN O O
modeling NN O O
were NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
adjusted NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
substance NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O I-PAR
1578 NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
significant NN O O
positive NN O O
long-term NN O O
program NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
hard NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
at NN O O
year NN O O
4 NN O O
or NN O O
5 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
program NN O O
interventions NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Project NN O O
TND NN O O
reduced NN O O
hard NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
successfully NN O O
followed NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
program NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
long-term NN O O
self-reported NN O O
behavioral NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
hard NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
among NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
school-based NN O O
, NN O O
limited-session NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16413892)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
with NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
for NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
oral NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
recovery NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O O
a NN O O
deep NN O O
sedation NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
in NN O O
place NN O O
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
received NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
0.03 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
microg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
initially NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
140 NN O I-INT
microg/kg/min NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
0.03 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
remifentanil NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1:500 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
initial NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
microg/kg/min NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
command NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Aldrete NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
9 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Postanesthesia NN O I-OUT
Discharge NN O I-OUT
Scoring NN O I-OUT
System NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Digit NN O I-OUT
Symbol NN O I-OUT
Substitution NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
homogenous NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
recovered NN O O
earlier NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
required NN O O
less NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
versus NN O O
1.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
46 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
versus NN O O
131 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17 NN O O
microg/kg/min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
minor NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
regimen NN O O
provided NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
used NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16437191)

Does NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
leaflet NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
self-reported NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
The NN O O
OPTIMA NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
remains NN O O
poor NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
leaflet NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
medication NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
, NN O O
observational NN O O
, NN O O
multi-center NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Consecutive NN O I-PAR
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
starting NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
raloxifene NN O I-INT
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
126 NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
offices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Spain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
leaflet NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
osteoporosis NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O O
B NN O O
followed NN O O
current NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
assess NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Morisky NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EuroQoL NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
745 NN O I-PAR
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=366 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
n=379 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Most NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
high NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
raloxifene NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
3-month NN O O
visit NN O O
: NN O O
56.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
62.7 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
proportion NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
visit NN O O
was NN O O
47.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
52.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
pain/discomfort NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
dimension NN O O
showing NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
reporting NN O O
problems NN O O
: NN O O
86.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
83.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.22 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HRQOL NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
mean NN O O
increment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EuroQoL NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EQ NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
9.2 NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Correlations NN O O
between NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
weak NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
receiving NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
leaflet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
at NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
under NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
consistent NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16472981)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
cooking NN O I-INT
plant NN O I-INT
oils NN O I-INT
on NN O O
recurrent NN O O
aphthous NN O O
stomatitis NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
One-third NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
population NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
minor NN O O
recurrent NN O I-PAR
aphthous NN O I-PAR
stomatitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RAS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
their NN O O
lifetime NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
well-controlled NN O O
dietary NN O O
intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
minor NN O O
RAS NN O O
are NN O O
very NN O O
rare NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
RAS NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
perilla NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
alpha-linolenic NN O O
acid NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
minor NN O I-PAR
RAS NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
once NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
soybean NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
perilla NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-INT
manner NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
phase NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
run-in NN O I-INT
phase NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mo NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
reference NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
most NN O I-INT
popular NN O I-INT
cooking NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Japan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
50/50 NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
soybean NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rapeseed NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
soybean NN O O
oil NN O O
or NN O O
perilla NN O O
oil NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
sole NN O O
cooking NN O O
oil NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
mo NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
and NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
phase NN O O
for NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
plasma NN O O
phospholipid NN O O
fraction NN O O
. NN O O

Occurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
RAS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
phases NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
alpha-Linolenic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
phospholipid NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
phase NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
extent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
minor NN O I-OUT
RAS NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
experimental NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
run-in NN O O
phase NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
extent NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
intergroup NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Perilla NN O O
oil NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
alpha-linolenic NN O O
acid NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
soybean NN O O
oil NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
minor NN O O
RAS NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
avoiding NN O O
rapeseed NN O O
oil NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
minor NN O O
RAS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16480401)

CDP571 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
humanized NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
to NN O O
tumour NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor-alpha NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
steroid-dependent NN O O
Crohn NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
More NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Crohn NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
become NN O O
either NN O O
steroid NN O O
resistant NN O O
or NN O O
dependent NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
steroid-dependent NN O O
Crohn NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
research NN O O
priority NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
CDP571 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
humanized NN O O
antibody NN O O
to NN O O
tumour NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor-alpha NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
steroid-dependent NN O O
Crohn NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
steroid-dependent NN O I-PAR
Crohn NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
271 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
36-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Steroid NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prednisolone NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
15-40 NN O I-PAR
mg/day NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
budesonide NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
mg/day NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
attempt NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
decrease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
discontinue NN O I-PAR
steroids NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Crohn NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
Activity NN O I-PAR
Index NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=150 NN O I-PAR
points NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
CDP571 NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
8-weekly NN O O
through NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
32 NN O O
. NN O O

Steroids NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
tapered NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
defined NN O O
schedule NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
sparing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
flare NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Crohn NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
=220 NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
36 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Steroid NN O I-OUT
sparing NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
53 NN O O
of NN O O
181 NN O O
( NN O O
29.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
CDP571 NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
( NN O O
36.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
similar NN O O
frequencies NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
CDP571 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
ineffective NN O O
for NN O O
sparing NN O I-OUT
steroids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
steroid-dependent NN O I-PAR
Crohn NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CDP571 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16492716)

Perceptual NN O I-OUT
wind-up NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
oesophagus NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
central NN O O
sensitisation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Oesophageal NN O O
acid NN O O
infusion NN O O
induces NN O O
enhanced NN O O
pain NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
non-acid NN O O
exposed NN O O
upper NN O O
oesophagus NN O O
( NN O O
secondary NN O O
hyperalgesia NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
non-cardiac NN O O
chest NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
suggesting NN O O
central NN O O
sensitisation NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
visceral NN O O
pain NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O O
gut NN O O
disorders NN O O
( NN O O
FGD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Perceptual NN O O
wind-up NN O O
( NN O O
increased NN O O
pain NN O O
perception NN O O
to NN O O
constant NN O O
intensity NN O O
sensory NN O O
stimuli NN O O
at NN O O
frequencies NN O O
> NN O O
or=0.3 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
proxy NN O O
for NN O O
central NN O O
sensitisation NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
pain NN O O
syndromes NN O O
where NN O O
pain NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
fibromyalgia NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
Wind-up NN O O
in NN O O
central NN O O
sensitisation NN O O
induced NN O O
human NN O O
visceral NN O O
pain NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
that NN O O
if NN O O
wind-up NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
proxy NN O O
for NN O O
central NN O O
sensitisation NN O O
induced NN O O
human NN O O
visceral NN O O
pain NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
oesophageal NN O O
wind-up NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
secondary NN O O
hyperalgesia NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
perception NN O O
at NN O O
pain NN O O
threshold NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
train NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
electrical NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hand NN O O
and NN O O
upper NN O O
oesophagus NN O O
( NN O O
UO NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
either NN O O
0.1 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O O
minute NN O O
lower NN O O
oesophageal NN O O
acid NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Wind-up NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
only NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
train NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UO NN O O
and NN O O
hand NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
acid NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UO NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O O
hyperalgesia NN O O
. NN O O

Wind-up NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
Hz NN O I-OUT
train NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UO NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
wind-up NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.4 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
1.6 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hand NN O O
( NN O O
wind-up NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.3 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.3 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
CONCLUSION NN O O
Enhanced NN O O
wind-up NN O O
after NN O O
secondary NN O O
oesophageal NN O O
hyperalgesia NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
visceral NN O O
pain NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
central NN O O
sensitisation NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
increased NN O O
central NN O O
neuronal NN O O
excitability NN O O
. NN O O

Wind-up NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
new NN O O
opportunities NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
neuronal NN O O
changes NN O O
to NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
FGD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16522696)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
conivaptan NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
V1A/V2 NN O I-INT
vasopressin NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
euvolemic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hypervolemic NN O I-PAR
hyponatremia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
Hyponatremia NN O O
[ NN O O
serum NN O O
sodium NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
[ NN O O
Na NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
< NN O O
135 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
] NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
fluid NN O O
and NN O O
electrolyte NN O O
abnormality NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
frequently NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
inappropriate NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
arginine NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
conivaptan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
vasopressin NN O I-INT
V NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/V NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
euvolemic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hypervolemic NN O I-PAR
hyponatremia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
5-d NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Oral NN O I-INT
conivaptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
or NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Seventy-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
Na NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
mEq/liter NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
Na NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
least-squares NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
[ NN O O
Na NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
with NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
2.0-fold NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2.5-fold NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
greater NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
confirmed NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
Na NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
71.7 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
27.5 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.044 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12.1 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
total NN O O
times NN O O
during NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
Na NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
level NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
above NN O O
baseline NN O O
were NN O O
46.5 NN O O
, NN O O
69.8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
88.8 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
least-squares NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
Na NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
3.4 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
6.4 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
for NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
8.2 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
for NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
confirmed NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
Na NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
/=135 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
given NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
given NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postural NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Oral NN O I-INT
conivaptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
correcting NN O O
serum NN O O
[ NN O O
Na NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
hyponatremia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16540291)

The NN O O
misattribution NN O O
of NN O O
salience NN O O
in NN O O
delusional NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Delusions NN O O
may NN O O
arise NN O O
from NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
emotional NN O O
perception NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
delusional NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
non-delusional NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
healthy NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
assign NN O O
affective NN O O
meanings NN O O
to NN O O
neutral NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Unpleasant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pleasant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
neutral NN O I-INT
words NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
presented NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
subject NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prominent NN O I-PAR
delusions NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
delusions NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
performed NN O O
three NN O O
tasks NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
they NN O I-INT
decided NN O I-INT
whether NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
letter NN O I-INT
string NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
word NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
non-word NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lexical NN O I-INT
decision NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
affective NN O I-INT
classification NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
in NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
judged NN O O
whether NN O O
words NN O O
were NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
neutral NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
unpleasant NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
neutral NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
pleasant NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
While NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
lexical NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
delusions NN O O
showed NN O O
selective NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
affective NN O O
classification NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

First NN O O
, NN O O
delusional NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
non-delusional NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
healthy NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
classify NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
unpleasant NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Second NN O O
, NN O O
delusional NN O O
patients NN O O
took NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
both NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
correctly NN O I-OUT
classify NN O I-OUT
neutral NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
affective NN O O
classification NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Taken NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
delusions NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
explicit NN O I-OUT
misattribution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
salience NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
neutral NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16540862)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
chiropractic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
eighteen-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
outcomes NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
UCLA NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chiropractic NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
back NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
managed NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
modalities NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
chiropractic NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SUMMARY NN O O
OF NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
Evidence NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
relative NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
common NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
offered NN O O
to NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
managed NN O O
care NN O O
is NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
681 NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
managed-care NN O I-PAR
facility NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
chiropractic NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
modalities NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
are NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
participants NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
681 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
610 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
89.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
participants NN O O
not NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
physical NN O O
therapy NN O O
or NN O O
modalities NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
18-month NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
a NN O O
little NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chiropractic NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
RR NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
= NN O O
1.29 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.80-2.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
participants NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
medical NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
larger NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
1.69 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.08-2.66 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
chiropractic NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
methods NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O O
or NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.98 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.62-1.55 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
medical NN O O
care NN O O
only NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
chiropractic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
physical NN O O
therapy NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
much NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
perceive NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
pain-free NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Differences NN O O
in NN O O
outcomes NN O O
between NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chiropractic NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
without NN O O
physical NN O O
therapy NN O O
or NN O O
modalities NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
chiropractic NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
perceived NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
perhaps NN O O
reflecting NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
or NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
blinding NN O O
. NN O O

Physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
medical NN O O
care NN O O
alone NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
physical NN O O
modalities NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
chiropractic NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16595217)

Conventional NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vitro NN O I-INT
fertilization NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
intracytoplasmic NN O I-INT
sperm NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
semen NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
sibling NN O O
oocytes NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
semen NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
IVF NN O I-INT
or NN O O
intracytoplasmic NN O I-INT
sperm NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICSI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
couples NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
semen NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
ICSI NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
sibling NN O I-PAR
oocytes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Performing NN O O
IVF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ICSI NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sibling NN O O
oocytes NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Fertilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
One NN O O
thousand NN O O
five NN O O
hundred NN O O
eighteen NN O O
oocytes NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
106 NN O O
oocyte NN O O
retrievals NN O O
: NN O O
849 NN O O
oocytes NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
ICSI NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
761 NN O O
were NN O O
microinjected NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
669 NN O O
oocytes NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
IVF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
26 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
106 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
fertilization NN O O
only NN O O
after NN O O
ICSI NN O I-INT
and NN O O
not NN O O
after NN O O
IVF NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IVF- NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fertilization NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
92/182 NN O O
oocytes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
fertilization NN O O
after NN O O
both NN O O
IVF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ICSI NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IVF+ NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
fertilization NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
IVF- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ICSI-treated NN O I-INT
oocytes NN O O
( NN O O
271/528 NN O O
oocytes NN O O
and NN O O
334/658 NN O O
oocytes NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
fertilization NN O O
after NN O O
either NN O O
IVF NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0/6 NN O O
oocytes NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ICSI NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0/9 NN O O
oocytes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
IVF+ NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
motile NN O I-OUT
sperm NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
preparation NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IVF- NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
More NN O O
high-quality NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
after NN O O
ICSI NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IVF+ NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
embryo NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
: NN O O
26 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IVF- NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IVF+ NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
those NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IVF- NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IVF+ NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Performing NN O O
ICSI NN O I-INT
on NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
oocytes NN O O
will NN O O
avoid NN O O
unnecessary NN O O
fertilization NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
semen NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
of NN O O
104 NN O O
cycles NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
rescued NN O O
by NN O O
ICSI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16596861)

Nurse-led NN O O
cardiac NN O O
clinics NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
best NN O O
practice NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
systematic NN O I-INT
review NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
research NN O I-INT
, NN O O
published NN O O
by NN O O
Blackwell NN O O
Publishing NN O O
Asia NN O O
and NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Centre NN O O
for NN O O
Evidence-based NN O O
Nursing NN O O
South NN O O
Australia NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
collaborating NN O O
centre NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Joanna NN O O
Briggs NN O O
Institute NN O O
( NN O O
JBI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
references NN O O
on NN O O
which NN O O
this NN O O
information NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
are NN O O
provided NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
systematic NN O O
review NN O O
report NN O O
available NN O O
online NN O O
via NN O O
Blackwell NN O O
Synergy NN O O
www.blackwell-synergy.com NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
members NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
institute NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
web NN O O
site NN O O
: NN O O
www.joannabriggs.edu.au NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
information NN O O
sheet NN O O
covers NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
: NN O O
Nurse-led NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
self-help NN O O
. NN O O

Education NN O O
and NN O O
motivational NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

Audit NN O O
and NN O O
recall NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
prevention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16600723)

Clinical NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
preserved NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
dual NN O I-INT
5alpha-reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
dutasteride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
determined NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
PSA NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
5alpha-reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
PSA NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
2 NN O O
dutasteride NN O O
benign NN O O
prostatic NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2,802 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
PSA NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
ng/ml NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
cc NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Urological NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
peak NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
flow NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
ml NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
dutasteride NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Increases NN O O
in NN O O
PSA NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
increase NN O O
from NN O O
nadir NN O O
to NN O O
month NN O O
24 NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
PSA NN O O
driven NN O O
biopsy NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
advised NN O O
cutoff NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
4 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
after NN O O
doubling NN O O
to NN O O
correct NN O O
for NN O O
dutasteride NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
calculated NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
men NN O O
without NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
-59.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
dutasteride NN O I-INT
, NN O O
using NN O O
doubled NN O O
values NN O O
to NN O O
correct NN O O
for NN O O
dutasteride NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
23.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
-37.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
limit NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
ng/ml NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
receiving NN O O
dutasteride NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.737 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.804 NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.671 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.578 NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
nadir NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
0.8 NN O I-OUT
ng/ml NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dutasteride NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.548 NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.795 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
doubling NN O O
factor NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
maintaining NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
PSA NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
detection NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
on NN O O
dutasteride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Increases NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O O
receiving NN O O
dutasteride NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
suspicious NN O O
and NN O O
serial NN O O
PSA NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
nadir NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16684856)

Endurance NN O O
training NN O O
has NN O O
little NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
active NN O O
muscle NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
net NN O O
balances NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
net NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
FFA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
moderate-intensity NN O O
cycling NN O O
exercise NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
increased NN O O
following NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
77.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
3.7 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
postprandial NN O O
state NN O O
during NN O O
90 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
before NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
O2 NN O O
peak NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
twice NN O O
after NN O O
9 NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
posttraining NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
O2 NN O O
peak NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
across NN O O
an NN O O
exercising NN O O
leg NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
surrogate NN O O
for NN O O
active NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
limb NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
exchange NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
femoral NN O O
arterial NN O O
and NN O O
venous NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
drawn NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O O
and NN O O
individual NN O O
FFA NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
palmitate NN O O
, NN O O
oleate NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
thermodilution NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
transition NN O O
from NN O O
rest NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
shift NN O O
from NN O O
net NN O O
leg NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
FFA NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-44 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
micromol/min NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
uptake NN O O
( NN O O
193 NN O O
+/- NN O O
49 NN O O
micromol/min NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
exercise NN O O
intensity NN O O
or NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O O
net NN O O
leg NN O O
release NN O O
and NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
FFA NN O O
closely NN O O
resembled NN O O
their NN O O
relative NN O O
abundances NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
with NN O O
approximately NN O O
21 NN O O
and NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
net NN O O
leg NN O O
total NN O O
FFA NN O O
uptake NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
by NN O O
palmitate NN O O
and NN O O
oleate NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Endurance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
49 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
52 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
pre NN O O
vs. NN O O
post NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
82 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
76 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
pre NN O O
vs. NN O O
post NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
net NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
the NN O O
resting NN O O
or NN O O
active NN O O
leg NN O O
before NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
favorably NN O O
affects NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
normolipidemic NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
muscle NN O O
contractions NN O O
per NN O O
se NN O O
have NN O O
little NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
net NN O O
leg NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
moderate-intensity NN O O
cycling NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
favorable NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
normolipidemic NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
postprandial NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
not NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
exchange NN O O
across NN O O
active NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16686565)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
step NN O I-INT
aerobics NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
step NN O I-INT
aerobics NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
College-age NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
step NN O I-INT
aerobics NN O I-INT
( NN O O
33 NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
men NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
31 NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
men NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
10-week NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
, NN O O
muscular NN O O
strength NN O O
, NN O O
Wingate NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
performance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vertical NN O O
jump NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
performance NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
step NN O I-INT
aerobics NN O I-INT
group NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
step NN O I-INT
aerobics NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
minutes NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
60-80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
reserve NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
2 NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
with NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
indicated NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
muscular NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Wingate NN O I-OUT
Anaerobic NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
step NN O I-OUT
aerobics NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vertical NN O I-OUT
jump NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
men NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
step NN O I-OUT
aerobics NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
men NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16739368)

[ NN O I-OUT
Rapidity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
's NN O O
office NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
gastroesophageal NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GERD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
proton NN O I-OUT
pump NN O I-OUT
inhibitors NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
controlled NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
open NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Lansoprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
MUPS NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
under NN O O
doctor NN O O
's NN O O
office NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
rapidity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
on NN O O
demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
180 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Time NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
1.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
hours NN O O
with NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
3.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
mgomeprazole NN O I-INT
MUPS NN O O
and NN O O
2.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
hours NN O O
with NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Studies NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
were NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
cross-over NN O O
studies NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
study NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lansoprazole NN O I-OUT
consumed NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
translated NN O O
to NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
study NN O O
3 NN O O
comparing NN O O
lansoprazole NN O O
and NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
was NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
. NN O O

58 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
opted NN O O
to NN O O
continuetreatment NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
appreciably NN O O
greater NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
due NN O O
tothe NN O O
faster NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16772718)

Intermittent NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
short NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
four-year NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
short NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
SGA NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
r-hGH NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
childhood NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
indications NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
marked NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
decreases NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
r-hGH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
schedules NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
microg/kg/day NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
discontinuous NN O O
or NN O O
continuous NN O O
regimen NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
r-hGH NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
height NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
4-year NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
58 NN O I-PAR
growth-retarded NN O I-PAR
SGA NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2-5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
TOTO NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
alternating NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
observation NN O O
( NN O O
O NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
TTOO NN O O
regimen NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
' NN O O
observation NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Height NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
HV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
4-year NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
HV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HV NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
HV-SDSCA NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
observation NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Interruption NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TOTO NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
H-SDSCA NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
TTOO NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
H-SDSCA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.4 NN O O
+ NN O O
or NN O O
- NN O O
01 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TOTO NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
1.6 NN O O
+ NN O O
or NN O O
- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TTOO NN O O
group NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
height NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
-2.0 NN O O
+ NN O O
or NN O O
- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
SDS NN O O
and NN O O
-2.0 NN O O
+ NN O O
or NN O O
- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
SDS NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
short NN O O
SGA NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
TOTO NN O I-INT
and NN O O
TTOO NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
produced NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
r-hGH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
interruption NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
SDS NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
' NN O O
continuous NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16784930)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
dobutamine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
apoptotic NN O O
pathways NN O O
in NN O O
acutely NN O I-PAR
decompensated NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
single NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
has NN O O
recently NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
decompensated NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-PAR
benefits NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
dobutamine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
proapoptotic NN O O
mediators NN O O
in NN O O
decompensated NN O O
HF NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
and NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
concomitant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
received NN O O
24-hour NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
dobutamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
subsequently NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

End-systolic NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
capillary NN O I-OUT
wedge NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levosimendan NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
remained NN O O
practically NN O O
unaffected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
N-terminal-pro-B-type NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-alpha NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
Fas NN O I-OUT
ligand NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
1,900 NN O O
+/- NN O O
223 NN O O
to NN O O
1,378 NN O O
+/- NN O O
170 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
13.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
to NN O O
12.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
68.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.7 NN O O
to NN O O
59.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
borderline NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.051 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Levosimendan-induced NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
end-systolic NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
respective NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
N-terminal-pro-B-type NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.671 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-alpha NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.586 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
soluble NN O I-OUT
Fas NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.441 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
soluble NN O I-OUT
Fas NN O I-OUT
ligand NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.614 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
over NN O O
dobutamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
decompensated NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
antiapoptotic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16792607)

Paraesthesia NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
needle-through-needle NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
double NN O I-INT
segment NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
for NN O O
combined NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Paraesthesia NN O O
during NN O O
regional NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
unpleasant NN O O
sensation NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
importantly NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
cases NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
neurological NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

Relatively NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
paraesthesia NN O O
during NN O O
combined NN O O
spinal NN O O
epidural NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
two NN O O
combined NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
techniques NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O I-INT
needle-through-needle NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
segment NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
respect NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
116 NN O I-PAR
parturients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
Caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
using NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
techniques NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
techniques NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
27G NN O I-INT
pencil NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
18G NN O I-INT
Tuohy NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
20G NN O I-INT
multiport NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
from NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
manufacturer NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paraesthesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
needle-through-needle NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
56.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
31.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paraesthesia NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
spinal NN O O
needle NN O O
insertion NN O O
was NN O O
20.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
needle-through-needle NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
double NN O I-INT
segment NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paraesthesia NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
epidural NN O O
catheter NN O O
insertion NN O O
was NN O O
46.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
needle-through-needle NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
24.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
double NN O I-INT
segment NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16797292)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
on NN O O
posttransplant NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
allograft NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Posttransplant NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
well-known NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O O
allograft NN O O
failure NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
kidney NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
dietary NN O O
sodium NN O O
restriction NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
widely NN O O
recommended NN O O
nonpharmacological NN O O
measure NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
no NN O O
detailed NN O O
investigation NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
conducted NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
sodium NN O O
restriction NN O O
on NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
antihypertensive NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O I-INT
strict NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
80 NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
mmol NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
24-hour NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
allograft NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

BP NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
reevaluated NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
visit NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
24-hour NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
190+/-75 NN O O
to NN O O
106+/-48 NN O O
mEq/d NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
146+/-21 NN O O
to NN O O
116+/-11 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
89+/-8 NN O O
to NN O O
72+/-10 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Low NN O O
sodium NN O O
intake NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
efficiently NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
kidney NN O I-PAR
allograft NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four-hour NN O O
urinary NN O O
sodium NN O O
excretion NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
checked NN O O
regularly NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
marker NN O O
to NN O O
indicate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
complies NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
sodium NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1683365)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
continuous NN O O
positive NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
cardiogenic NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
edema NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
continuous NN O O
positive NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
CPAP NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
face NN O O
mask NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intrapulmonary NN O O
shunt NN O O
reduction NN O O
remains NN O O
unsettled NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
this NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O I-PAR
1985 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1987 NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
cardiogenic NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
edema NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
chosen NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
serial NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
high-flow NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
CPAP NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
screening NN O O
for NN O O
exclusion NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3-hour NN O O
investigation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

PaO2 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CPAP NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
study NN O O
; NN O O
whereas NN O O
intrapulmonary NN O I-OUT
shunt NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
alveolar-arterial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
gradient NN O I-OUT
AaDO2 NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
PaO2 NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
intrapulmonary NN O I-OUT
shunt NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
AaDO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
beneficial NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
CPAP NN O O
therapy NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
face NN O O
mask NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
failed NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CPAP NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
failed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3-hour NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CPAP NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
6-hour NN O O
observation NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
24-hour NN O O
hospital NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (16855475)

Divalproex NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16864164)

Long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Stockholm NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
among NN O O
'high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
pre- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
many NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
loco-regional NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
postoperative NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
node NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Because NN O O
of NN O O
encouraging NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
mid NN O O
1970s NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
Stockholm NN O I-PAR
Breast NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
decided NN O O
to NN O O
directly NN O O
compare NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
CMF-type NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Long-term NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
pre- NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
547 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
679 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
node NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tumour NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RT NN O O
substantially NN O O
reduced NN O O
loco-regional NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
both NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
hazard NN O O
RT NN O O
versus NN O O
CT NN O O
: NN O O
0.67 NN O O
and NN O O
0.43 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
premenopausal NN O O
patients NN O O
distant NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
less NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
hazard NN O O
: NN O O
1.68 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
CT NN O O
( NN O O
cumulative NN O O
survival NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O O
years NN O O
: NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O O
and NN O O
RT NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
patients NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
substantial NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
malignancy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
doubled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
pronounced NN O O
excess NN O O
concerned NN O O
second NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
cancers NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
at NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O O
and NN O O
RT NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trials NN O O
illustrate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
loco-regional NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
high-risk NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
systemic NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
systemically NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16879331)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
enamel NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
on NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
marginal NN O I-OUT
microleakage NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
flowable NN O O
composite NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
pit NN O O
and NN O O
fissure NN O O
sealant NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
microleakage NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
occlusal NN O I-OUT
surfaces NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
after NN O O
preparation NN O O
with NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
and NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
diamond-bur NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
premolars NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
I NN O O
- NN O O
high-speed NN O I-INT
handpiece NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
37 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
phosphoric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
II NN O O
- NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
350 NN O I-INT
mJ NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
112 NN O I-INT
J/cm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
37 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
phosphoric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
III NN O O
- NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
350 NN O I-INT
mJ NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
112 NN O I-INT
J/cm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Er NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mJ NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mJ/cm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

All NN O O
cavities NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
adhesive NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
restored NN O O
with NN O O
flowable NN O O
composite NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
manufacturer NN O O
's NN O O
instructions NN O O
. NN O O

Teeth NN O O
were NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
thermal NN O I-INT
cycling NN O I-INT
and NN O O
immersed NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
silver NN O I-INT
nitrate NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
darkness NN O O
. NN O O

Specimens NN O O
were NN O O
sectioned NN O O
longitudinally NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bucco-lingual NN O O
direction NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
slices NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
mm NN O O
thick NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
slice NN O O
was NN O O
immersed NN O O
into NN O O
photo NN O O
developing NN O O
solution NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
photographed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
microleakage NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
scored NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
0 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
calibrated NN O O
examiners NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
Er NN O O
: NN O O
YAG NN O O
laser NN O O
prepared NN O O
and NN O O
etched NN O O
specimens NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
enamel NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
when NN O O
etching NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Preparing NN O O
and NN O O
treating NN O O
the NN O O
enamel NN O O
surface NN O O
exclusively NN O O
by NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16880243)

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

Zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
15-minute NN O O
infusion NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
infusions NN O O
. NN O O

Skeletal-related NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SREs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
pathologic NN O O
bone NN O O
fractures NN O O
, NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
compression NN O O
, NN O O
surgery NN O O
to NN O O
bone NN O O
, NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
bone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hypercalcemia NN O O
of NN O O
malignancy NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
SRE NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
SRE NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
312 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
experienced NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
SRE NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
experienced NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
SRE NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
SRE NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
declined NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
stable NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
pyrexia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
SREs NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
favorable NN O O
risk NN O O
: NN O O
benefit NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
skeletal NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16887481)

Left NN O I-INT
thoracoabdominal NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
abdominal-transhiatal NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
for NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cardia NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
subcardia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inaccessibility NN O O
of NN O O
mediastinal NN O O
nodal NN O O
metastases NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O I-INT
thoracoabdominal NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LTA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
often NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cardia NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
subcardia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O I-OUT
LTA NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
abdominal-transhiatal NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
these NN O O
tumours NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
167 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
TH NN O O
( NN O O
n=82 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
LTA NN O O
( NN O O
n=85 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
projected NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
302 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
interim NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
predicted NN O I-PAR
probability NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
LTA NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O I-PAR
better NN O I-PAR
overall NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
TH NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
3.65 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
closed NN O I-PAR
immediately NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00149266 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
52.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
40.4-64.1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TH NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
37.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
26.1-49.6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LTA NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
LTA NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
TH NN O O
was NN O O
1.36 NN O O
( NN O O
0.89-2.08 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.92 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hospital NN O O
after NN O O
LTA NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
after NN O O
TH NN O O
. NN O O

Morbidity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
worse NN O O
after NN O O
LTA NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
TH NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Because NN O O
LTA NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
survival NN O O
after NN O O
TH NN O O
and NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
morbidity NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cardia NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
subcardia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
LTA NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
justified NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
these NN O O
tumours NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16890144)

Dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
modulates NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
alters NN O O
renovascular NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
Ang NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evidence NN O O
supports NN O O
a NN O O
connection NN O O
among NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
rennin-angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
myocardial NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
relationship NN O O
would NN O O
exist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
responses NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
qualitatively NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
vasculature NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
38.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
week NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
HS NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
> NN O O
200 NN O O
mmol NN O O
Na/day NN O O
; NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
LS NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
, NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
mmol NN O O
Na/day NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
sodium NN O O
and NN O O
Ang NN O O
II NN O O
on NN O O
myocardial NN O O
relaxation NN O O
and NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RBF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
study NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
assessed NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
tissue NN O O
Doppler NN O O
imaging NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
RBF NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
para-aminohippurate NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
Ang NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
ng/kg/min NN O O
x NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
HS NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
E NN O O
' NN O O
and NN O O
RBF NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
on NN O O
LS NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
E NN O O
' NN O O
14.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
12.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
cm/s NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
RBF NN O O
596 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
vs NN O O
563 NN O O
+/- NN O O
26 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
modulated NN O O
E NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RBF NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
Ang NN O O
II NN O O
infusion NN O O
in NN O O
like NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

HS NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
blunted NN O O
LS NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HS NN O O
DeltaE NN O O
' NN O O
-1.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
cm/s NN O O
vs NN O O
LS NN O O
DeltaE NN O O
' NN O O
-0.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
cm/s NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
HS NN O O
DeltaRBF NN O O
-135.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
LS NN O O
DeltaRBF NN O O
-62.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.1 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
describe NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
that NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
modulates NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
Ang NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
when NN O O
assessing NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ang NN O O
II NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
and NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Future NN O O
research NN O O
will NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
disorders NN O O
of NN O O
diastolic NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16908870)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
prelinguistic NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
acquisition NN O O
of NN O O
spoken NN O O
communication NN O O
in NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
group NN O O
experiment NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
communication NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Responsive NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Prelinguistic NN O I-INT
Milieu NN O I-INT
Teaching NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
RPMT NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Picture NN O I-INT
Exchange NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
spoken NN O O
communication NN O O
in NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Each NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
hr NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Spoken NN O O
communication NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
rigorous NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
generalization NN O O
at NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
, NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
PECS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
RPMT NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nonimitative NN O I-OUT
spoken NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
nonimitative NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
posttreatment NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Considering NN O O
growth NN O O
over NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
measurement NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
nonimitative NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
faster NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PECS NN O I-OUT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RPMT NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
began NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
relatively NN O O
high NN O O
object NN O O
exploration NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
analogous NN O I-OUT
slopes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
steeper NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RPMT NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PECS NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
began NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
object NN O O
exploration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16948927)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
open-label NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
target NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
behavior NN O O
( NN O O
aggressiveness NN O O
, NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
, NN O O
irritability NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
with NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
given NN O I-PAR
orally NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
mg/day NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
periodically NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
total NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Childhood NN O O
Autism NN O O
Rating NN O O
Scale NN O O
( NN O O
CARS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Global NN O O
Assessment NN O O
Scale NN O O
( NN O O
CGAS NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
39 NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
19 NN O O
received NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
of NN O O
19 NN O O
children NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
17 NN O O
of NN O O
19 NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
children NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
children NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.035 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone NN O I-INT
also NN O O
improved NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonverbal NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transient NN O I-OUT
dyskinesias NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
three NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16963850)

Anecortave NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
retinal NN O I-PAR
angiomatous NN O I-PAR
proliferation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
anecortave NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
retinal NN O I-PAR
angiomatous NN O I-PAR
proliferation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RAP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
neovascular NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
age-related NN O O
macular NN O O
degeneration NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
specific NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neovascularization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RAP NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
neovascularization NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1:1:1 NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
quantities NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
anecortave NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
sterile NN O I-INT
suspension NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
juxtascleral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Best-corrected NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Early NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O I-OUT
Diabetic NN O I-OUT
Retinopathy NN O I-OUT
Study NN O I-OUT
chart NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biomicroscopy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
funduscopy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
digital NN O I-OUT
fluorescein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
indocyanine NN O I-OUT
green NN O I-OUT
angiography NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
6-month NN O O
retreatment NN O O
interval NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
selected NN O O
patients NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomography NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
detachment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
neurosensory NN O I-OUT
retina NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
pigment NN O I-OUT
epithelium NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
all NN O O
neovascular NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Vision NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
64.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
posterior NN O O
juxtascleral NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
anecortave NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
capillary NN O I-OUT
permeability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RAP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
exudation NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
neovascularization NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Like NN O O
other NN O O
monotherapeutic NN O O
methods NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
this NN O O
variant NN O O
of NN O O
neovascular NN O O
age-related NN O O
macular NN O O
degeneration NN O O
, NN O O
anecortave NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
should NN O O
investigate NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17019624)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
55 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
given NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=27 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=28 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
baseline NN O O
ABC-I NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
20.6 NN O O
( NN O O
8.1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
21.6 NN O O
( NN O O
10.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
1.37 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
endpoint NN O O
in NN O O
ABC-I NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
-13.4 NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
-7.2 NN O O
( NN O O
1.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
; NN O O
ES=-0.7 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
effect NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
somnolence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Risperidone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17069543)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
childhood/adolescent NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Atypical NN O O
antipsychotics NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
disruptive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
( NN O O
PDDs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
they NN O O
require NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
adolescents NN O O
with NN O O
PDD NN O O
. NN O O

Eleven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDD-NOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6-14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
treatment NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
linear NN O O
trend NN O O
x NN O O
group NN O O
interaction NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions- NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
olanzapine NN O O
versus NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
were NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

Olanzapine NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.8 NN O O
lbs NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
lbs NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Olanzapine NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PDDs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
a NN O O
concern NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
olanzapine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
PDD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17069545)

Neuropsychological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
co-morbid NN O I-PAR
disruptive NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
favorably NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
described NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
discontinuation NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
open-label NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
assignment NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
latencies NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
visually NN O O
presented NN O O
stimuli NN O O
requiring NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
attention-controlled NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
i.e. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
focused NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
divided NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
About NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
responders NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
produce NN O O
valid NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
younger NN O O
mental NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
adaptive NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
the NN O O
valid NN O O
task NN O O
performers NN O O
divided NN O O
attention NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
serial NN O I-OUT
search NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
regress NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
further NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
such NN O O
group NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
focused NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
after NN O O
several NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
enhancing NN O O
divided NN O O
attention NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1707797)

The NN O O
instruction NN O O
to NN O O
refrain NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
blinking NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
auditory NN O I-OUT
P3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
N1 NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Often NN O O
subjects NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
refrain NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
blinking NN O I-INT
lest NN O O
their NN O O
evoked NN O O
EEG NN O O
potentials NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
distorted NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
very NN O O
instructions NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
P3 NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O O
tones NN O O
were NN O O
presented NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
count NN O O
the NN O O
high-pitched NN O O
tones NN O O
. NN O O

Half NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
instructed NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
blink NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
this NN O O
instruction NN O O
was NN O O
omitted NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Target NN O O
tones NN O O
evoked NN O O
larger NN O O
P3s NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
non-targets NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
subjects NN O O
that NN O O
actually NN O O
blinked NN O O
rarely NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
also NN O O
differed NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
N1 NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
P3 NN O O
studies NN O O
working NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
harder NN O O
some NN O O
frequently NN O O
blinking NN O O
subjects NN O O
try NN O O
to NN O O
refrain NN O O
from NN O O
blinking NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
smaller NN O O
might NN O O
become NN O O
their NN O O
P3 NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Omitting NN O O
the NN O O
instruction NN O O
and NN O O
using NN O O
off-line NN O O
blink NN O O
subtraction NN O O
procedures NN O O
seems NN O O
a NN O O
viable NN O O
alternative NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
actually NN O O
motivated NN O O
by NN O O
discrepant NN O O
findings NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
preceding NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
sequence NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
P3 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
discrepancies NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
largely NN O O
resolved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
instructional NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
tone NN O I-OUT
intensities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
subjects NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
are NN O I-INT
discouraged NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
blinking NN O I-INT
try NN O O
to NN O O
protect NN O O
themselves NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
arousing NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17114905)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
photocoagulation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
benign NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-OUT
nodules NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
US NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-guided NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
photocoagulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
compressive NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-OUT
thyroid NN O I-OUT
nodules NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
68+/-3 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean+/-SEM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
observation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
71+/-2 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nodules NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
30 NN O O
week NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
nodule NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
8.2 NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
2.8-26.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Nodules NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
6.5 NN O O
ml NN O O
; NN O O
range NN O O
2.4-16.7 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
30 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
4.6 NN O O
ml NN O O
; NN O O
range NN O O
0.69-14.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Energy NN O O
given NN O O
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
thyroid NN O I-OUT
nodule NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
tolerated NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
well NN O O
and NN O O
reported NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
compressive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cosmetic NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
enrolment NN O O
7/13 NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
6/13 NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
sub NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
hyperthyroidism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PLP NN O I-OUT
normalized NN O I-OUT
thyroid NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
PLP NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
benign NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
nodules NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17118092)

The NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
chewing NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
alertness NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
cardiac NN O O
autonomic NN O O
activity NN O O
during NN O O
sleep NN O I-PAR
deprivation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Chewing NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
alleviate NN O O
feelings NN O O
of NN O O
sleepiness NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
cognitive NN O O
performance NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
chewing NN O I-INT
on NN O O
alertness NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
performance NN O O
across NN O O
one NN O O
night NN O O
without NN O O
sleep NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
mediating NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
autonomic NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Fourteen NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
counterbalanced NN O O
protocol NN O O
employing NN O O
a NN O O
chewing NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
completed NN O O
tasks NN O O
assessing NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tracking NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
grammatical NN O I-OUT
reasoning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alertness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
each NN O O
hour NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
chewing NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
also NN O O
chewed NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
tasteless NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
odorless NN O I-INT
substance NN O I-INT
for NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
each NN O O
hour NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
square NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
successive NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
R-R NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RMSSD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
preejection NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PEP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Alertness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
amongst NN O O
the NN O O
chewing NN O O
condition NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
differ NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fact NN O I-OUT
worse NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RMSSD NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
conditions NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
PEP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
later NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chewing NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
increase NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Caffeine NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
alertness NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
chewing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Relative NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
RMSSD NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
following NN O O
caffeine NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PEP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

Strong NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
cardiac NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
complex NN O O
cognitive NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
between NN O O
subjective NN O O
alertness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
simpler NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
differential NN O O
process NN O O
mediating NN O O
complex NN O O
versus NN O O
simple NN O O
cognitive NN O O
performance NN O O
during NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17152183)

Cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
with NN O O
HIV-positive NN O I-PAR
homosexual NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
sustained NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
sustained NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
group-based NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBSM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
on NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mildly NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
HIV-positive NN O I-PAR
homosexual NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bisexual NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
largely NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
era NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HAART NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
1992-1997 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Men NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
, NN O O
group-based NN O O
CBSM NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
83 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
psychoeducational NN O I-INT
seminar NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
participants NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
battery NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
administered NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
research NN O I-INT
assistant NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
10-week NN O I-INT
CBSM NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
6-month NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Men NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CBSM NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
maintained NN O O
previously NN O O
observed NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
sustained NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
CBSM NN O O
on NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
10-week NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

positive NN O O
reframing NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
CBSM NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
potentially NN O O
efficacious NN O O
treatment NN O O
that NN O O
reduces NN O O
and NN O O
maintains NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
enhances NN O O
social NN O O
support NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-positive NN O I-PAR
homosexual NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bisexual NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
reframing NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
10-week NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
remain NN O O
a NN O O
crucial NN O O
factor NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
sustained NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17160228)

[ NN O I-OUT
Sentinel NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
node NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
importance NN O O
, NN O O
techniques NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIM NN O O
Considering NN O O
that NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
status NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
staging NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
determinant NN O O
for NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
being NN O O
this NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
staging NN O O
methods NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
accurate NN O O
possible NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
offer NN O O
this NN O O
individuals NN O O
the NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
adequate NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
survival NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

Sentinel NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
progressively NN O O
being NN O O
popularized NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
that NN O O
increases NN O O
sensibility NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
detect NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
reveal NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
accurate NN O O
stage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
studied NN O O
and NN O O
sentinel NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
was NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
utilizing NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
patent NN O I-INT
blue NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
association NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
radiotracer NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
technetium NN O I-INT
99m NN O I-INT
colloid NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
fashion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sentinel NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.96 NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
nodes NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
transoperative NN O I-OUT
lympho-scintigraphy NN O I-OUT
five NN O O
extra NN O I-OUT
sentinel NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
not NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
blue NN O O
dye NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
and NN O O
considered NN O O
for NN O O
histopathology NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
four NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
12.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
sentinel NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
metastasis NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
being NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
association NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hematoxylin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eosin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunohistochemical NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Sentinel NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
detection NN O O
and NN O O
analysis NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
technique NN O O
is NN O O
relatively NN O O
simple NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
is NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O I-OUT
upstage NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Blue NN O I-INT
staining NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radio NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
are NN O O
both NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
their NN O O
superposition NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
good NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
increase NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
our NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
aberrant NN O O
lymph NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
would NN O O
alter NN O O
resection NN O O
margins NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Upstaging NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
identifying NN O O
potential NN O O
candidates NN O O
for NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
12.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
4/31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
this NN O O
individuals NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
chance NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
their NN O O
global NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17174705)

Continuous NN O O
pralidoxime NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
versus NN O O
repeated NN O O
bolus NN O O
injection NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
organophosphorus NN O I-PAR
pesticide NN O I-PAR
poisoning NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
oximes NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
organophosphorus NN O I-PAR
pesticide NN O I-PAR
poisoning NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
conclusively NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
pralidoxime NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
repeated NN O O
bolus NN O O
doses NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderately NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
poisoning NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
organophosphorus NN O I-PAR
pesticides NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
single-centre NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
moderately NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
poisoning NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
anticholinesterase NN O I-PAR
pesticide NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
pralidoxime NN O I-INT
over NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Controls NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
bolus NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
pralidoxime NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
h. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
hour NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
hour NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
h. NN O I-INT
Thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
they NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
weaned NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
ventilators NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
atropine NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
identifier NN O O
NCT00333944 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
drop-outs NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-PAR
pralidoxime NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
required NN O O
less NN O O
atropine NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
6 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
difference NN O O
24 NN O O
mg NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
24-26 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

88 NN O O
( NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
64 NN O O
( NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
high-dose NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
needed NN O O
intubation NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk=0.72 NN O O
, NN O O
0.62-0.86 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
longer NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
vs NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
difference NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
5-6 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
A NN O O
high-dose NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
pralidoxime NN O O
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
g/h NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
reduces NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
moderately NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
organophosphorus-pesticide NN O I-PAR
poisoning NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17179098)

Dofequidar NN O I-INT
fumarate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MS-209 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dofequidar NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
CAF NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dofequidar NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
, NN O O
orally NN O O
active NN O O
quinoline NN O O
derivative NN O O
that NN O O
reverses NN O O
multidrug NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
six NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
CAF NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
28 NN O O
days/cycle NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PO NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
dofequidar NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
900 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
PO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORR NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
221 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessable NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
ORR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
42.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CAF NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
53.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
dofequidar NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
CAF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
24.6 NN O O
% NN O O
relative NN O O
improvement NN O O
and NN O O
10.5 NN O O
% NN O O
absolute NN O O
increase NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.077 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
median NN O O
241 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
CAF NN O O
v NN O O
366 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
dofequidar NN O O
+ NN O O
CAF NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.145 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
defined NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
dofequidar NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intact NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Except NN O O
for NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
excess NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CAF NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
dofequidar NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
doxorubicin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Dofequidar NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
CAF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17196275)

Xuezhikang NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
extract NN O O
of NN O O
cholestin NN O O
, NN O O
decreases NN O O
plasma NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
and NN O O
endothelin-1 NN O O
, NN O O
improve NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
ischemia NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
feelings NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
Xuezhikang NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
extract NN O O
of NN O O
cholestin NN O O
, NN O O
available NN O O
from NN O O
Chinese NN O O
red NN O O
yeast NN O O
rice NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
effectively NN O O
modify NN O O
lipid NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
Xuezhikang NN O I-INT
could NN O O
modify NN O O
endothelin-1 NN O O
( NN O O
ET-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
interleukin-6 NN O O
( NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
high-sensitivity NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CRP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
ischemia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
of NN O O
Xuezhikang NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=18 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
90 NN O O
for NN O O
measuring NN O O
above NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treadmill NN O O
exercise NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
feelings NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
90 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
Xuezhikang NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
19 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
26 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
Xuezhikang NN O I-INT
led NN O O
significantly NN O O
to NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
log-CRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
38 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
44 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
respectively NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ET-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
47 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
exercise NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
prolonged NN O O
after NN O O
Xuezhikang NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
feelings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Data NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
Xuezhikang NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
modification NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
ET-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17196973)

Do NN O O
readers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
make NN O O
bridging NN O O
inferences NN O O
from NN O O
world NN O O
knowledge NN O O
? NN O O
Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
frequently NN O O
show NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
text NN O O
reading NN O O
comprehension NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
often NN O O
is NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
poor NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
draw NN O O
inferences NN O O
during NN O O
reading NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
inadequate NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
relevant NN O O
knowledge NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
taken NN O O
to NN O O
read NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
question NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
relating NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
world NN O I-INT
knowledge NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
when NN O I-INT
it NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
relevant NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
irrelevant NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bridging NN O I-INT
inference NN O I-INT
evoked NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
preceding NN O I-INT
two-sentence NN O I-INT
vignette NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
normally NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
matched NN O O
on NN O O
word NN O O
reading NN O O
accuracy NN O O
, NN O O
chronological NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vocabulary NN O O
but NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
text NN O O
comprehension NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
strong NN O O
priming NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
, NN O O
robust NN O O
over NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
items NN O O
; NN O O
participants NN O O
read NN O O
those NN O O
questions NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
inference NN O O
evoked NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
vignette NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
they NN O O
read NN O O
those NN O O
questions NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
irrelevant NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
membership NN O O
or NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
knowledge NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
readers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
just NN O O
like NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
activating NN O O
appropriate NN O O
world NN O O
knowledge NN O O
primed NN O O
by NN O O
implicit NN O O
inferences NN O O
while NN O O
reading NN O O
the NN O O
vignettes NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
comprehension NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
readers NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
inability NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
implicit NN O O
inferences NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
draw NN O O
on NN O O
relevant NN O O
world NN O O
knowledge NN O O
. NN O O

Instead NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
problems NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
sought NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
text NN O O
processing NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1721246)

Bradykinin-induced NN O O
cough NN O O
reflex NN O O
markedly NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
captopril NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
enalapril NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cough NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-INT
bradykinin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BK NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
substance NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
citric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
random NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cough NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
citric NN O O
acid NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
cough NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
SP NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-5 NN O O
) NN O O
M NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
cough NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

BK NN O I-INT
caused NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
13.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-log NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
it NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
cause NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
concentrations NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
BK NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
cause NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
except NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
coughed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
without NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
citric NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

BK NN O O
caused NN O O
cough NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
14.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
( NN O O
-log NN O O
M NN O O
) NN O O
although NN O O
BK1-7 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
metabolite NN O O
of NN O O
BK NN O O
by NN O O
ACE NN O O
, NN O O
caused NN O O
cough NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
5.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
( NN O O
-log NN O O
M NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
another NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
cough NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
impaired NN O O
metabolism NN O O
of NN O O
BK NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
may NN O O
relate NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
manifestation NN O O
of NN O O
cough NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
ACE NN O I-PAR
inhibitors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1723467)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
nitrendipine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O O
antagonists NN O O
on NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
are NN O O
conflicting NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
nitrendipine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
nitrendipine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
glucose NN O O
load NN O O
in NN O O
mildly NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
transiently NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
disappearance NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

glucose NN O O
, NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nifedipine NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
nitrendipine NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
calcium NN O O
antagonists NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
glucose NN O O
homeostasis NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
alteration NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
glucose NN O O
load NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
ruled NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17244294)

How NN O O
does NN O O
Cash NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Counseling NN O I-INT
affect NN O O
costs NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
consumer-directed NN O O
model NN O O
( NN O I-INT
Cash NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Counseling NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
Medicaid NN O O
personal NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
home- NN O O
and NN O O
community-based NN O O
waiver NN O O
services NN O O
( NN O O
HCBS NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
Medicaid NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

DATA NN O O
SOURCES/STUDY NN O O
SETTING NN O O
Medicaid NN O O
claims NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
enrollees NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Cash NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Counseling NN O I-PAR
demonstration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Demonstration NN O I-PAR
enrollees NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
PCS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Arkansas NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Jersey NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Medicaid NN O I-PAR
HCBS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Enrollment NN O I-PAR
occurred NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
covered NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Demonstration NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
option NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
Cash NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Counseling NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
Medicaid NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
agency NN O I-INT
( NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ordinary NN O O
least NN O O
squares NN O O
regressions NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
on NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Medicaid NN O I-OUT
PCS/waiver NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O O
Medicaid NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
consumers NN O O
' NN O O
preenrollment NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
preenrollment NN O O
Medicaid NN O O
spending NN O O
. NN O O

Models NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-PAR
separately NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
nonelderly NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DATA NN O O
EXTRACTION NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Each NN O O
state NN O O
supplied NN O O
claims NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
demonstration NN O O
enrollees NN O O
. NN O O

PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
Largely NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
increased NN O O
consumers NN O O
' NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
get NN O O
the NN O O
authorized NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
paid NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
expenditures NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
personal NN O I-OUT
care/waiver NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
state NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
in NN O O
Florida NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
personal NN O I-OUT
care/waiver NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
partially NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
savings NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
Medicaid NN O O
services NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
those NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
long-term NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
year NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
Medicaid NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
generally NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
treatment-control NN O O
cost NN O O
differences NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
in NN O O
Florida NN O O
to NN O O
17 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
in NN O O
Arkansas NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
year NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
generally NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
year NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
in NN O O
Arkansas NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
treatment-control NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
shrink NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time-to NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
5 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
year NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Medicaid NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
generally NN O O
higher NN O O
under NN O O
Cash NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Counseling NN O I-INT
because NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
system NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
get NN O O
the NN O O
services NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
entitled NN O O
to NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
members NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
( NN O O
despite NN O O
being NN O O
authorized NN O O
for NN O O
them NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
service NN O O
recipients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
was NN O O
authorized NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
flaw NN O O
in NN O O
Florida NN O O
's NN O O
reassessment NN O O
procedures NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
members NN O O
receiving NN O O
more NN O O
generous NN O O
benefit NN O O
amounts NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
members NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
keep NN O O
total NN O O
Medicaid NN O O
costs NN O O
per NN O O
recipient NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
incurred NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
consumer-directed NN O O
programs NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
carefully NN O O
designed NN O O
and NN O O
closely NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1728202)

Granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjunct NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
relapsed NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
economic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
granulocyte NN O I-INT
macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjunct NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
relapsed NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O O
tertiary NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
shorter NN O O
periods NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
absolute NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
count NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1000 NN O O
cells/mm3 NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
days NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
27 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
periods NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
platelet-transfusion NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
13.5 NN O O
days NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
, NN O O
32 NN O O
days NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
40.5 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Actuarial NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
after NN O O
32 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
had NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
charges NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autologous NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
in-hospital NN O O
charges NN O O
, NN O O
$ NN O O
39,800 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
$ NN O O
62,500 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
post-infusion NN O I-OUT
charges NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
room NN O O
and NN O O
board NN O O
, NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
transfusions NN O O
, NN O O
laboratory NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
therapy NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
acceleration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myeloid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsed NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17302075)

[ NN O O
Occupational NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
during NN O O
pediatric NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
anesthetic NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
extractor NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
occupational NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
gases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
extractor NN O O
during NN O O
pediatric NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
purpose-built NN O O
extraction NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
adenoidectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Gases NN O O
were NN O O
extracted NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
room NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
extracted NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=12 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O O
was NN O O
with NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N2O NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
oxygen NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
flow NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
L NN O O
x NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
Mapleson NN O O
C NN O O
circuit NN O O
. NN O O

Maintenance NN O O
was NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
flow NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
gas NN O O
mixture NN O O
under NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
with NN O O
an NN O O
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
Mapleson NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
circuit NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
circuits NN O O
were NN O O
equipped NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure-limiting NN O O
valve NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
connection NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
gas NN O O
extractor NN O O
. NN O O

Ambient NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sevoflurane NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
N2O NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
breathing NN O O
area NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
anesthesiologist NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
surgeon NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
nurse NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
about NN O O
symptoms NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
occupational NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
N2O NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sevoflurane NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
without NN O O
an NN O O
extractor NN O O
was NN O O
423 NN O O
( NN O O
290 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
10.9 NN O O
) NN O O
parts NN O O
per NN O O
million NN O O
( NN O O
ppm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
working NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
extractor NN O O
, NN O O
exposure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
: NN O O
24.7 NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.1 NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
ppm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
noticing NN O O
a NN O O
smell NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
registered NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
without NN O O
an NN O O
extractor NN O O
( NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extractor NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
P=.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.009 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
extractor NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Gas NN O O
extraction NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
achieving NN O O
levels NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
limits NN O O
and NN O O
greatly NN O O
reducing NN O O
occupational NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1730427)

Stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
staging NN O I-INT
and NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ninety-three NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FIGO NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
epithelial NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
surgical NN O O
staging NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospectively NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
radioactive NN O I-INT
phosphorus NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
patient NN O O
had NN O O
gross NN O O
residual NN O O
disease NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
forty-five NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
melphalan NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
some NN O O
time NN O O
during NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
women NN O O
expired NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Four NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
forty-eight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
phosphorus NN O I-INT
required NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
reexploration NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
intestinal NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty-one NN O O
women NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
their NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17331237)

Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
PST NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
algorithm NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
currently NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
burdensome NN O O
disorders NN O O
worldwide NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence-based NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
already NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
insufficiently NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
positive NN O O
results NN O O
than NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

Earlier NN O O
research NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
USA NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
good NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Problem NN O I-OUT
Solving NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
algorithm NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
research NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O O
has NN O O
also NN O O
shown NN O O
good NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
Problem NN O I-INT
Solving NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
work NN O O
very NN O O
well NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Netherlands NN O O
too NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
systems NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
two-armed NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
randomization NN O O
on NN O O
patient-level NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
depressive NN O O
disorder NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
adapted NN O I-INT
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
framework NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
contracting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
adherence-improving NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Problem NN O I-INT
Solving NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
according NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
algorithm NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomised NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Included NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
will NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
will NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Baseline NN O I-INT
measurements NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
follow NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
questionnaires NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
interview NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
is NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PHQ9 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PHQ9 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
IDS-SR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
TiC-P NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EQ-5D NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
American NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
, NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
effective NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
Atlantic NN O O
and NN O O
across NN O O
different NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
systems NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
implement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
Netherlands NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17334477)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Diphereline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Cabergoline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Dostinex NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
uterine NN O I-PAR
myoma NN O I-PAR
regression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cabergoline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Dostinex NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dopamine NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
myoma NN O O
growth NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Diphereline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
place NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Obstetrics NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Gynecology NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Tabriz NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Sciences NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Tabriz NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Iran NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
myoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
thoroughly NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
either NN O O
Diphereline NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Cabergoline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
first NN O O
Group NN O O
took NN O O
3.75 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
Diphereline NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
times NN O O
every NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
took NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
Cabergoline NN O I-INT
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
Cabergoline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
regressed NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
individual NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
nodule NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
from NN O O
46-53 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
gonadotropin NN O I-INT
releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
group NN O O
all NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
tumor NN O O
nodule NN O O
varied NN O O
from NN O O
21-97 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
shrinkage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nodules NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.881 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
and NN O O
0.701 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
light NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
few NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dopamine NN O I-INT
agonists NN O I-INT
may NN O O
hold NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
novel NN O O
treatment NN O O
modalities NN O O
for NN O O
leiomyoma NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
leiomyoma NN O O
through NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17341994)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
olmesartan NN O O
medoxomil NN O O
, NN O O
losartan NN O O
potassium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
valsartan NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
forced-titration NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
receptor NN O O
blockers NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
olmesartan NN O I-INT
medoxomil NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
losartan NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
olmesartan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
losartan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
losartan NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
320 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
olmesartan NN O I-INT
remained NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
seated NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SeDBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
3 NN O O
medications NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
SeDBP NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
olmesartan NN O O
reduced NN O O
mean NN O O
SeDBP NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
losartan NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
olmesartan NN O O
medoxomil NN O O
group NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
goal NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
140/90 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Olmesartan NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
SeDBP NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
valsartan NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
attained NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
goal NN O O
with NN O O
olmesartan NN O O
( NN O O
P=.031 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
agents NN O O
lowered NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
equivalently NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17362495)

Immediately NN O O
restored NN O O
, NN O O
single-tapered NN O O
implants NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
maxilla NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
prosthodontic NN O O
and NN O O
aesthetic NN O O
outcomes NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Conventional NN O O
implant NN O O
protocols NN O O
advocate NN O O
a NN O O
two-stage NN O O
technique NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
load-free NN O O
, NN O O
submerged NN O O
healing NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
immediate NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
implants NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
viable NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
prosthodontic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aesthetic NN O I-OUT
peri-implant NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
immediately NN O I-PAR
restored NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Southern NN O I-PAR
single-tapered NN O I-PAR
implants NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
maxilla NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
43.25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
23-71 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
satisfying NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
two-stage NN O I-INT
restoration NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
n=14 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
restoration NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
( NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
=14 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Tapered NN O O
, NN O O
roughened-surface NN O O
Southern NN O O
implants NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
implant NN O O
level NN O O
bone NN O O
impressions NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
. NN O O

Provisional NN O O
screw-retained NN O O
crowns NN O O
, NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
occlusion NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
at NN O O
second-stage NN O O
surgery NN O O
after NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
restoration NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
implant NN O O
placement NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
restoration NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
definitive NN O O
screw-retained NN O O
metal-ceramic NN O O
crowns NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
occlusion NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Peri-implant NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
papilla NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
definitive NN O O
crown NN O O
placement NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
for NN O O
mucosal NN O O
maturation NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Prosthodontic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aesthetic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
established NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
within NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
test NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
quantity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
implant NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
implant NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
implant NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
radiographic NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
stability NN O O
tests NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
prosthodontic NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peri-implant NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
papilla NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
over NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Tapered NN O O
, NN O O
roughened-surface NN O O
implants NN O O
immediately NN O O
restored NN O O
with NN O O
single NN O O
provisional NN O O
crowns NN O O
at NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
definitive NN O O
crowns NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
prosthodontically NN O O
and NN O O
aesthetically NN O O
successful NN O O
as NN O O
conventionally NN O O
restored NN O O
two-stage NN O O
implants NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
service NN O O
. NN O O

Restoring NN O I-INT
single NN O O
implants NN O O
immediately NN O O
with NN O O
screw-retained NN O O
crowns NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
efficient NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
by NN O O
no NN O O
means NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
two-stage NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17391914)

Information NN O I-INT
source NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
peers NN O O
' NN O O
initial NN O O
attitudes NN O O
toward NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Authors NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
information NN O O
source NN O O
on NN O O
peers NN O O
' NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
toward NN O O
an NN O O
unfamiliar NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=296 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
age=10.21 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
an NN O O
unfamiliar NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
sources NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
videotape NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
teacher NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
hypothetical NN O I-INT
mother NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
hypothetical NN O I-INT
father NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
( NN O O
e NN O O
) NN O O
hypothetical NN O I-INT
doctor NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Interactive NN O O
effects NN O O
between NN O O
source NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
grade NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
cognitive NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
attitudes NN O O
. NN O O

Fifth-graders NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
information NN O O
was NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
extra-familial NN O O
sources NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
doctor NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
parent NN O O
sources NN O O
. NN O O

Mother NN O O
yielded NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
persuasive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
third-graders NN O O
versus NN O O
fifth-graders NN O O
. NN O O

Attitudes NN O O
toward NN O O
autism NN O O
differ NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
who NN O O
provides NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
disability NN O O
. NN O O

Persuasion NN O O
theory NN O O
appears NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
towards NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Implications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
study NN O O
limitations NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17395055)

Enhanced NN O O
inotropic NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
failing NN O O
left NN O O
ventricle NN O O
by NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
contractility NN O I-INT
modulation NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
signals NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
experimentally NN O I-PAR
induced NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
that NN O O
electrical NN O I-INT
signals NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
failing NN O O
myocardium NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O O
refractory NN O O
period NN O O
improved NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
these NN O O
same NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
contractility NN O I-INT
modulating NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CCM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
signals NN O I-INT
on NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MVO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
microembolizations-induced NN O I-INT
HF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
CCM NN O I-INT
leads NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
generator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OPTIMIZER NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
baseline NN O O
measurements NN O O
, NN O O
CCM NN O I-INT
signals NN O I-INT
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
continuously NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

MVO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
CCM NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
dogs NN O O
, NN O O
CCM NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
versus NN O O
31 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
MVO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
257 NN O O
+/- NN O O
41 NN O O
versus NN O O
180 NN O O
+/- NN O O
34 NN O O
micromol/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
CCM NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
+dP/dt NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
10.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
with NN O O
dogs NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
CCM NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
MVO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.7 NN O O
versus NN O O
12.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.2 NN O O
mL NN O O
O NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
unlike NN O O
cAMP-dependent NN O O
positive NN O O
inotropic NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
CCM NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
elicited NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
MVO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17466465)

Development NN O O
, NN O O
description NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
small-group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
HIV NN O O
and NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
virus NN O O
infections NN O O
among NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Young NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IDUs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
great NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
acquiring NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
infections NN O O
through NN O O
their NN O O
sexual NN O O
or NN O O
injection NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
IDUs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
dynamic NN O O
and NN O O
iterative NN O O
process NN O O
that NN O O
involved NN O O
extensive NN O O
development NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
focus NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
population NN O O
to NN O O
pilot NN O O
individual NN O O
activities NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
pilot NN O O
testing NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
six-session NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
emerged NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
process NN O O
relied NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
social-cognitive NN O I-INT
theories NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
influence NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
also NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
trained NN O O
facilitators NN O O
to NN O O
deliver NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
conducted NN O O
quality NN O O
assurance NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
better NN O O
understand NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
asked NN O O
participants NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
intervention NN O O
experiences NN O O
and NN O O
examined NN O O
potential NN O O
contamination NN O O
across NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
fidelity NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
reported NN O O
positive NN O O
experiences NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
perceived NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
injection NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
for NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Minimal NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
contamination NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

Lessons NN O O
learned NN O O
can NN O O
help NN O O
future NN O O
researchers NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
stronger NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
high-need NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17490965)

Trace NN O I-INT
element NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
after NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
modulates NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
by NN O O
way NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
tissue NN O I-OUT
trace NN O I-OUT
element NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
After NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
develop NN O O
nutritional NN O I-PAR
deficiencies NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
trace NN O I-OUT
element NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
deficiencies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Various NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
infections NN O O
and NN O O
delayed NN O O
wound NN O O
healing NN O O
, NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
, NN O O
intravenous NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
TE NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
on NN O O
circulating NN O O
and NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
TE NN O O
tissue NN O O
concentrations NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
surface NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intravenous NN O I-INT
copper NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
selenium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TE NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
( NN O O
V NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
saline NN O O
solution NN O O
for NN O O
14-21 NN O O
d. NN O O
Blood NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
until NN O O
day NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
skin NN O O
biopsy NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
burns NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
TE NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TE NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
burned NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
contents NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
selenium NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
zinc NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
20 NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
30 NN O O
d NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TE NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
versus NN O O
4 NN O O
infections NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TE NN O O
and NN O O
V NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
infections NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TE NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
requirements NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
regrafting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
TE NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
contents NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
selenium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
fewer NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17501728)

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
Picture NN O I-INT
Exchange NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
teachers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
expert NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
consultancy NN O O
for NN O O
teachers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Picture NN O I-INT
Exchange NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Group NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
immediate NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
delayed NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
84 NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
6.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TREATMENT NN O O
A NN O I-INT
2-day NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
workshop NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
teachers NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
half-day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
school-based NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
consultants NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Rates NN O O
of NN O O
: NN O O
communicative NN O I-OUT
initiations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PECS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
classroom NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule-Generic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADOS-G NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Reciprocal NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Interaction NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
formal NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Controlling NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
developmental NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
initiations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PECS NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
immediately NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
( NN O O
Odds NN O O
Ratio NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
being NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
ordinal NN O O
rate NN O O
category NN O O
2.72 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.22-6.09 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
and NN O O
OR NN O O
3.90 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.75-8.68 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ADOS-G NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
modest NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
PECS NN O I-INT
teacher NN O I-INT
training/consultancy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Rates NN O O
of NN O O
pupils NN O O
' NN O O
initiations NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
symbols NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
classroom NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

TREATMENT NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
maintained NN O O
once NN O O
active NN O O
intervention NN O O
ceased NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17511685)

Tacrolimus NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
without NN O O
steroids NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
steroid NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
desirable NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
steroid NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
LT NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Randomization NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
LT NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
methylprednisolon NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
thereafter NN O O
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
medication NN O O
containing NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
56 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
methylprednisolon NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
54 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
completely NN O O
stopped NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

End NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
LT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One-year NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
88.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
steroid NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.572 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-seven NN O O
( NN O O
48.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
35.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
placebo NN O O
versus NN O O
steroid NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.116 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
steroid NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.257 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
steroid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
CMV NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
25 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.336 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
post-transplant NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
30 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
39 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.248 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-OUT
10 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hypertriglyceridemia NN O I-OUT
32 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
early NN O O
steroid NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
LT NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
without NN O O
increased NN O O
rejection NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17516971)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
self-administered NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cervical NN O O
ripening NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
operative NN O O
hysteroscopy NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
sequential NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
1000-microgram NN O O
self-administered NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
self-administered NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
home NN O O
on NN O O
preoperative NN O O
cervical NN O O
ripening NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
resectoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
sequential NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Norwegian NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SAMPLE NN O O
Premenopausal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
resectoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
1000 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
of NN O O
self-administered NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
self-administered NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
the NN O O
evening NN O O
before NN O O
outpatient NN O O
resectoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Preoperative NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
Intraoperative NN O O
findings NN O O
and NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Values NN O O
are NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
Acceptability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Values NN O O
are NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
completely NN O O
acceptable NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
fairly NN O O
acceptable NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
fairly NN O O
unacceptable NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
completely NN O O
unacceptable NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
Pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
scale NN O O
ranges NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
pain NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
unbearable NN O O
pain NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Values NN O O
are NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
Occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Values NN O O
are NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
n NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
e NN O O
) NN O O
Complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
n NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17535502)

Using NN O O
the NN O O
demand-control NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
job NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
to NN O O
predict NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
informal NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O I-INT
demand-control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
D-C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
job NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
has NN O O
generated NN O O
a NN O O
considerable NN O O
body NN O O
of NN O O
empirical NN O O
support NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
psychological NN O O
health NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
work NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
extend NN O O
previous NN O O
work NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
D-C NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
job NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
to NN O O
predict NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
informal NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
Data NN O O
were NN O O
gathered NN O O
from NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
caregiver/patient NN O I-PAR
dyads NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cross-sectional NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
out-patient NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
dependent NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Demand NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
patient- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
caregiver-derived NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
D-C NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
and NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Lower NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
D-C NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
D-C NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
caregivers NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
being NN O O
the NN O O
dominant NN O O
predictor NN O O
. NN O O

Research NN O O
linking NN O O
the NN O O
theory NN O O
and NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
job NN O O
strain NN O O
and NN O O
informal NN O O
caregiving NN O O
studies NN O O
may NN O O
elucidate NN O O
both NN O O
fields NN O O
of NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
demand-control NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
job NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
to NN O O
predict NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
informal NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17544361)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
acceptance- NN O O
and NN O O
control-based NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
coping NN O O
with NN O O
food NN O O
cravings NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
analog NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
utilized NN O O
an NN O O
analog NN O I-OUT
paradigm NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
coping NN O O
with NN O O
food NN O O
cravings NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
theorized NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
critical NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-eight NN O I-PAR
undergraduate NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-INT
transparent NN O I-INT
boxes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
chocolate NN O I-INT
Hershey NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Kisses NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
instructed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
keep NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
chocolates NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
them NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
eat NN O O
them NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
h. NN O O
Before NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
Kisses NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
control-based NN O I-INT
coping NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
such NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
distraction NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
restructuring NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
c NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
acceptance-based NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
such NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
experiential NN O I-INT
acceptance NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
defusion NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Power NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Food NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
environment NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-report NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chocolate NN O I-OUT
cravings NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
surreptitiously NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
chocolate NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
depended NN O O
on NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
such NN O O
that NN O O
acceptance-based NN O O
strategies NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O O
outcomes NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
cravings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
those NN O O
reporting NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
greater NN O O
cravings NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
scored NN O O
lowest NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
PFS NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
craving NN O I-OUT
self-report NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
chocolate NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
both NN O O
cravings NN O O
and NN O O
consumption NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
maintenance NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17613280)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
clear NN O O
liquids NN O O
versus NN O O
low-fat NN O O
solid NN O O
diet NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
meal NN O O
in NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
& NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
recovering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
typically NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
when NN O O
ready NN O O
to NN O O
initiate NN O O
oral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
discharge NN O O
then NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
successful NN O O
advancement NN O O
to NN O O
solid NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
initiating NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
low-fat NN O I-INT
solid NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LFSD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
after NN O O
mild NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
LOH NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
CLD NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
LFSD NN O I-INT
when NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
ready NN O O
to NN O O
resume NN O O
oral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
. NN O O

Decisions NN O O
about NN O O
diet NN O O
advancement NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
discretion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
team NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
input NN O O
from NN O O
study NN O O
team NN O O
members NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stop NN O I-OUT
feeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
post-refeeding NN O I-OUT
LOH NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
post-refeeding NN O O
to NN O O
capture NN O O
re-admission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
randomized NN O O
121 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
CLD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
LFSD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
feeding NN O I-OUT
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CLD NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
LFSD NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.51 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
LOH NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
refeeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
identical NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
1-day NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1-2 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.77 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LFSD NN O O
arm NN O O
consumed NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
calories NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
grams NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CLD NN O O
arm NN O O
during NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
meal NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
28-day NN O I-OUT
re-admission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Initiating NN O O
oral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
after NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
pancreatitis NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
an NN O O
LFSD NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
provided NN O O
more NN O O
calories NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
CLD NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
LOH NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17617281)

Codeine/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
hydrocodone/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
tablets NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
23-day NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Analgesics NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
essential NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cancer-associated NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Pharmacologic NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
usually NN O O
begun NN O O
with NN O O
nonopioid NN O O
analgesics NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
If NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
achieved NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
so-called NN O O
weak NN O O
opioids NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O O
AEs NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
opioids NN O O
include NN O O
constipation NN O O
, NN O O
somnolence NN O O
, NN O O
nausea NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
literature NN O O
search NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
opioids NN O O
are NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
bitartrate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
cancer-related NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
23-day NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
Colombian NN O O
centers NN O O
: NN O O
University NN O O
Libre NN O O
, NN O O
Social NN O O
Security NN O O
Institute NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
General NN O O
Hospital NN O O
of NN O O
Medell?n NN O O
, NN O O
Cali NN O O
, NN O O
Colombia NN O O
. NN O O

Outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
/= NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
cancer-related NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
10-cm NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
analog NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
VAS NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
4-point NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
pain-intensity NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
1 NN O O
tablet NN O O
of NN O I-INT
codeine/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C/A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
30/500 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O I-INT
hydrocodone/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H/A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
5/500 NN O O
mg NN O O
PO NN O O
q4h NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
150/2500 NN O O
and NN O O
25/2500 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
23 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
> NN O O
3 NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
VAS NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
was NN O O
doubled NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
1 NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
5-point NN O O
verbal NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
[ NN O O
VRS NN O O
] NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
= NN O O
none NN O O
; NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
a NN O O
little NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
some NN O O
; NN O O
3 NN O O
= NN O O
a NN O O
lot NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
= NN O O
complete NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
whom NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
< NN O O
- NN O O
3 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

AEs NN O O
were NN O O
self-reported NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
4-point NN O O
VRS NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
= NN O O
absent NN O O
; NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
mild NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
moderate NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
= NN O O
severe NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
121 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
59 NN O O
received NN O I-INT
C/A NN O I-INT
and NN O O
62 NN O O
received NN O I-INT
H/A NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
59 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
described NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
moderate NN O O
; NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O I-INT
C/A NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
58 NN O O
% NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
150/2500 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
double NN O O
dosage NN O O
; NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
experience NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O I-INT
H/A NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
as NN O O
absent NN O O
or NN O O
mild NN O O
in NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
starting NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
25/2500 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
; NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
double NN O O
dosage NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
experience NN O O
any NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
AEs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
C/A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
H/A NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
dry NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O I-INT
C/A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
H/A NN O I-INT
over NN O O
23 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cancer-related NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17623816)

The NN O O
peroxisome NN O O
proliferator-activated NN O O
receptor-gamma NN O O
agonist NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
progenitor NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Peroxisome NN O O
proliferator-activated NN O O
receptor-gamma NN O O
( NN O O
PPAR NN O O
gamma NN O O
) NN O O
agonists NN O O
( NN O I-INT
thiazolidinediones NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
TZDs NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O O
marrow-derived NN O O
endothelial NN O O
progenitor NN O O
cells NN O O
( NN O O
EPCs NN O O
) NN O O
improve NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
predict NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
EPCs NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
fasting NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
30-day NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
45 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
optimal NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TZD NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
an NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
compliance NN O O
( NN O O
11.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
to NN O O
36.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

TZD NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
high-sensitivity NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
43 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pioglitazone NN O O
increased NN O O
CD34 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/kinase NN O I-OUT
insert NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
EPCs NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
142 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
cultured NN O I-OUT
1,1'-dioctadecyl-3,3,3',3'-tetramethylindocarbocyanine-labeled NN O I-OUT
acetylated NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/lectin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
EPCs NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
180 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

EPC NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
changed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

TZD NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
SDF-1-induced NN O I-OUT
migratory NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
146 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
EPC NN O O
number NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
upregulated NN O O
the NN O O
clonogenic NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EPCs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
colony-forming NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
172 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cultured NN O O
human NN O O
EPCs NN O O
, NN O O
TZD NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
EPC NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
migration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
NADPH-oxidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
TZD NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
was NN O O
reversed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
PPAR NN O O
gamma NN O O
antagonist NN O O
GW9662 NN O O
and NN O O
mimicked NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
adiponectin NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
PPAR NN O O
gamma NN O O
agonist NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EPCs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
regenerative NN O O
mechanism NN O O
in NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
normoglycemic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17624203)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Asian NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Asian NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
co-morbidities NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dyslipidemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
six-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
Thailand NN O O
, NN O O
Malaysia NN O O
and NN O O
Singapore NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
2:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
104 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
51 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sildenafil NN O I-INT
was NN O O
started NN O O
at NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
if NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
On NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoint NN O O
, NN O O
sildenafil-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Erectile NN O I-OUT
Function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IIEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
questions NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
questions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
accumulated NN O O
into NN O O
IIEF NN O O
domains NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
five NN O O
domains NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
sildenafil NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
sildenafil-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
intercourse NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
in NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
reported NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
tinnitus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Sildenafil NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
ED NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
Thai NN O O
, NN O O
Malaysian NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Singaporean NN O O
males NN O O
who NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
increased NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O


-DOCSTART- (17625432)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
interferon-alpha NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
amantadine NN O O
reduces NN O O
deterioration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
interferon-alpha NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IFN-alpha NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ribavirin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
IFN-alpha NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
orally NN O O
, NN O O
n=136 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=131 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
'Profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Mood NN O I-OUT
States NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
'Everyday NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
TW NN O O
) NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
TW24 NN O O
, NN O O
TW48 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Early NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
TW8 NN O O
, NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
amantadine NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
TW24 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
deterioration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
modalities NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vigor NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Especially NN O O
, NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amantadine NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anger NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mind NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
everyday NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zest NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
amantadine NN O O
disappeared NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
IFN-alpha NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
deterioration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vigor NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1764390)

The NN O O
EUROSCAN NN O I-INT
Study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
EUROSCAN NN O I-INT
Steering NN O I-PAR
Committee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17662102)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
extended NN O O
duration NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2a NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
e NN O I-PAR
antigen-negative NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Forty-eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2a NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
approved NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Standard NN O O
interferon NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
e NN O O
antigen NN O O
( NN O O
HBeAg NN O O
) NN O O
-negative NN O O
CHB NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
yr NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2a NN O I-INT
for NN O O
60 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
lamivudine NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HBeAg-negative NN O I-PAR
CHB NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2a NN O I-INT
( NN O O
180 NN O O
microg/week NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
wk NN O O
or NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2a NN O I-INT
( NN O O
180 NN O O
microg/week NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
48 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2a NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
lamivudine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
virologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
deoxyribonucleic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
> NN O O
or=2 NN O O
log10 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
and NN O O
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
20,000 NN O I-OUT
copies/mL NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
84 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HBsAg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
SVR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
9/13 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
84 NN O O
, NN O O
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
undetectable NN O O
by NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
in NN O O
5/13 NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
additional NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
2-3 NN O O
log NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Five NN O O
patients NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
> NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
HBsAg NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
3 NN O O
with NN O O
undetectable NN O O
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
84 NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
fourth NN O O
who NN O O
met NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
SVR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Sixty NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2a NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
lamivudine NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
SVR NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
historical NN O O
controls NN O O
with NN O O
HBeAg-negative NN O I-PAR
CHB NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
48 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
pegylated NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Larger NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
if NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
regimen NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
HBsAg NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17664467)

Clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
V-325 NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
For NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AGGEC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
providing NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
palliation NN O O
is NN O O
highly NN O O
desirable NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
AGGEC NN O O
patients NN O O
has NN O O
never NN O O
before NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multinational NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
V325 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
445 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
either NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DCF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
prospectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
measure NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
definitive NN O I-OUT
worsening NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
categories NN O O
of NN O O
Karnofsky NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
KPS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
definitive NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
definitive NN O I-OUT
worsening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
pain-related NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
clinic NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
throughout NN O O
V325 NN O O
. NN O O

DCF NN O O
significantly NN O O
prolonged NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
definitive NN O I-OUT
worsening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
KPS NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CF NN O I-INT
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
6.1 NN O O
v NN O O
4.8 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.38 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.08 NN O O
to NN O O
1.76 NN O O
; NN O O
log-rank NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
definitive NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
definitive NN O I-OUT
worsening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
favored NN O O
DCF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Pain-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
pain-related NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
V325 NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
AGGEC NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
beyond NN O O
protocol-specific NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
D NN O I-INT
to NN O O
CF NN O I-INT
not NN O O
only NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
improved NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17666359)

[ NN O O
Application NN O O
of NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
in NN O O
HBV-carrying NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FK506 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
kidney NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
KT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
carrying NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
Virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
109 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
FK506 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CsA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
KT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
2-year-long NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
record NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
2-year NN O I-OUT
patient/graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
86.0 NN O O
% NN O O
/73.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
94.2 NN O O
% NN O O
/90.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
CsA NN O O
and NN O O
FK506 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
10.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
26.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
15.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
14.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
CsA NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
conversion NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
FK506 NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
conversion NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
ALT/AST NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
255.13+/-31.38/201.88+/-21.25 NN O O
U/L NN O O
to NN O O
31.25+/-11.50/25.13+/-9.68 NN O O
U/L NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
For NN O O
HBV-carrying NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
FK506 NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
immunosuppressant NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safer NN O O
than NN O O
CsA NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17700649)

Should NN O O
snacks NN O I-INT
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
obesity NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
A NN O O
1-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
to NN O O
recommend NN O O
no NN O I-INT
snacks NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
snacks NN O I-INT
per NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
1-year NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
easier NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
lose NN O O
weight NN O O
if NN O O
snacks NN O O
in NN O O
between NN O O
meals NN O O
are NN O O
omitted NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS/METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
140 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
104 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
1-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
eating NN O O
frequencies NN O O
; NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
meals/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3M NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
meals NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
snacks/day NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3+3M NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
regular NN O O
and NN O O
individualized NN O O
counseling NN O O
by NN O O
dieticians NN O O
. NN O O

Information NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
eating NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Over NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
the NN O O
3M NN O I-INT
group NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
snacks NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
3+3M NN O I-INT
group NN O O
reported NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
( NN O O
-1.1 NN O O
vs NN O O
+0.4 NN O O
snacks/day NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
decreased NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
E NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
E NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fiber NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
lost NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
3M NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
3+3M=-4.1+/-6.1 NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
-5.9+/-9.4 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3M NN O I-INT
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
3+3M NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.033 NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
difference NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Recommending NN O O
snacks NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
between NN O O
meals NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17849093)

[ NN O I-INT
Stent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
for NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SPACE NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SPACE NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
stent-supported NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
carotid NN O I-INT
endarterectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CEA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
design NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
stenoses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
1,214 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
that NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
ipsilateral NN O O
stroke NN O O
or NN O O
death NN O O
between NN O O
randomisation NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
6.92 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CAS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
6.45 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CEA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
-1.94 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
+2.87 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
the NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
proven NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
was NN O O
true NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
or NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
endpoint NN O O
'ipsilateral NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
randomisation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
7.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CAS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CEA NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.16 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.74-1.82 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Instent NN O I-OUT
restenoses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CAS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
2.14 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.10-4.18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Surgery NN O O
remains NN O O
the NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Stent-supported NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hands NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
experienced NN O O
interventionalist NN O O
with NN O O
proven NN O O
low NN O O
periprocedural NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17852958)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
health-promotion NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
ADL NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O O
and NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
visually NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Ageing NN O O
with NN O O
visual NN O O
impairment NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
disability NN O O
whereby NN O O
age-related NN O O
macular NN O O
degeneration NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
causes NN O O
dependence NN O O
in NN O O
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
even NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
stage NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
an NN O O
activity-based NN O O
, NN O O
health-promotion NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
with NN O O
an NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
, NN O O
targeting NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
age-related NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
dependence NN O O
in NN O O
ADL NN O O
, NN O O
general NN O O
health NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
self-reported NN O O
health NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
28-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
229 NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
131 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
( NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
n=69 NN O O
, NN O O
health-promotion NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
n=62 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
28-month NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
health-promotion NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
maintained NN O O
their NN O O
ADL NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O O
increased NN O O
its NN O O
dependence NN O O
in NN O O
ADL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
General NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
systematically NN O O
dropped NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
level NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
participants NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
health-promotion NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tiredness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
health-promotion NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
health-promotion NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
slowed NN O O
down NN O O
the NN O O
disablement NN O I-OUT
process NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
decreased NN O I-PAR
vision NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
enabling NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
their NN O O
ADL NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
by NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
28 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17926617)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
intelligence NN O O
and NN O O
behavior NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
find NN O O
out NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
30 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
EA NN O I-INT
at NN O O
Baihui NN O O
( NN O O
GV NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Sishencong NN O O
( NN O O
EX-HN NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Shenting NN O O
( NN O O
GV NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Benshen NN O O
( NN O O
GB NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Yintang NN O O
( NN O O
EX-HN NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Naohu NN O O
( NN O O
GV NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Naokong NN O O
( NN O O
GB NN O O
19 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Neiguan NN O O
( NN O O
PC NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
scalp NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
at NN O O
Speech NN O O
Areas NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
III NN O O
added NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
EA NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
picture NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vocabulary NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPVT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
86.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EA NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
56.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
behavior NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
enhancement NN O O
in NN O O
sensation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
association NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
self-care NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
behavior NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
sensation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-care NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significantly NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
PPVT NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
EA NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
improve NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
intelligence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17929164)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
piracetam NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
autism NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
hypoglutamatergic NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
piracetam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
modulator NN O O
of NN O O
AMPA-sensitive NN O O
glutamate NN O O
receptors NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

About NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
inclusive NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
DSM NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
specialty NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
chief NN O I-PAR
complaint NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
disruptive NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
piracetam NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
between NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
kg NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
weighting NN O O
above NN O O
40 NN O O
kg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
piracetam NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
800 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
starting NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
with NN O O
piracetam NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
protocols NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
between NN O O
subjects NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
5.85 NN O O
, NN O O
d.f NN O O
. NN O O

= NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
endpoint NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
-11.90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.79 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-5.15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.04 NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
week NN O O
10 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
6.017 NN O O
, NN O O
d.f NN O O
. NN O O

= NN O O
38 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
atypical NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
medications NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
glutamate NN O O
agent NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
piracetam NN O O
, NN O O
might NN O O
have NN O O
increase NN O O
synergistic NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17941770)

Tubeless NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
nephrolithotomy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
safe NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
supracostal NN O O
access NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tubeless NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
nephrolithotomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCNL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
calculi NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
18F NN O I-INT
Re-entry NN O I-INT
nephrostomy NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
6F NN O I-INT
Double-J NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
matched NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
stone NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
stone NN O O
laterality NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
renal NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
PCNL NN O O
procedures NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stays NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
were NN O O
3.1 NN O O
and NN O O
1.6 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
8 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
263 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
supracostal NN O I-OUT
accesses NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
stone-free NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
insignificant NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
fragments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
urinoma NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
Double-J NN O O
stents NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Tubeless NN O I-INT
PCNL NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
supracostal NN O O
access NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
shorter NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17942872)

Human NN O I-INT
papillomavirus NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Papanicolaou NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
to NN O O
screen NN O O
for NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Screening NN O O
for NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
human NN O O
papillomavirus NN O O
( NN O O
HPV NN O O
) NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
high-grade NN O O
( NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
cervical NN O O
intraepithelial NN O O
neoplasia NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
gain NN O O
represents NN O O
overdiagnosis NN O O
or NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
future NN O O
high-grade NN O O
cervical NN O O
epithelial NN O O
neoplasia NN O O
or NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12,527 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
a NN O O
1:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
HPV NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Papanicolaou NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Pap NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O I-INT
Pap NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Women NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
HPV NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
Pap NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
result NN O O
were NN O O
offered NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
HPV NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
persistently NN O O
infected NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
high-risk NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
HPV NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
offered NN O O
colposcopy NN O O
with NN O O
cervical NN O O
biopsy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
similar NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
double-blinded NN O I-OUT
Pap NN O I-OUT
smears NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
colposcopies NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Comprehensive NN O O
registry NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
follow NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
4.1 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
intraepithelial NN O I-OUT
neoplasia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
detected NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
subsequent NN O O
screening NN O O
examinations NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
enrollment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
lesions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
intraepithelial NN O I-OUT
neoplasia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
to NN O O
102 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
such NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
subsequent NN O O
screening NN O O
examinations NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
64 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
with NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
lesions NN O O
or NN O O
cancer NN O O
was NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
71 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O I-INT
women NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
such NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
with NN O O
persistent NN O O
HPV NN O O
infection NN O O
remained NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
lesions NN O O
or NN O O
cancer NN O O
after NN O O
referral NN O O
for NN O O
colposcopy NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
HPV NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
Pap NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
to NN O O
screen NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
mid-30s NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
cervical NN O O
intraepithelial NN O O
neoplasia NN O O
or NN O O
cancer NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
subsequent NN O O
screening NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00479375 NN O O
[ NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17947289)

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
novel NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
interventions NN O O
targeting NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
symbolic NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
skills NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-five NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
symbolic NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
5-8 NN O O
week NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
novel NN O O
probes NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
mastery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
probes NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
auditory NN O O
and NN O O
visual NN O O
stimuli NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
loud NN O O
spider NN O O
crawling NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
musical NN O O
ball NN O O
bouncing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
verbalizations NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
acknowledge NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
probe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
engage NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
shared NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
intervener NN O O
and NN O O
probe NN O O
upon NN O O
termination NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
group NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
sharing NN O I-OUT
coordinated NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
looks NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
intervener NN O O
and NN O O
probe NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
generalization NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
probe NN O O
did NN O O
occur NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
targeting NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
provides NN O O
further NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17961835)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
experimental NN O O
somatic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
summation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Gabapentin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
neuropathic NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
different NN O O
somatic NN O O
pain NN O O
modalities NN O O
and NN O O
integrative NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
completely NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
experimental NN O O
pain NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg NN O O
gabapentin NN O O
on NN O O
multi-modal NN O O
experimental NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
and NN O O
muscle NN O O
pain NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
following NN O O
pain NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
pain NN O O
thresholds NN O O
to NN O O
single NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
cutaneous NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
temporal NN O I-INT
summation NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
stimulus-response NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
relating NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-INT
increasing NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
intensities NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
determined NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pain NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
averaged NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
post-dose NN O O
times NN O O
, NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O I-OUT
summation NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
skin NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hypertonic NN O I-OUT
saline NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
muscle NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
hypertonic NN O I-OUT
saline NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Gabapentin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
temporal NN O I-OUT
summation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
intensities NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
potential NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
biomarker NN O O
for NN O O
drugs NN O O
with NN O O
efficacy NN O O
on NN O O
neurogenic NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
also NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
tonic NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
responsive NN O O
to NN O O
gabapentin NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
further NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17977295)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dental NN O O
cream NN O O
containing NN O O
amorphous NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
complexes NN O I-INT
on NN O O
white NN O O
spot NN O O
lesion NN O O
regression NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
laser NN O O
fluorescence NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dental NN O O
cream NN O O
containing NN O O
complexes NN O O
of NN O O
casein NN O I-INT
phosphoprotein-amorphous NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CPP-ACP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fluoride NN O I-INT
mouthwashes NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
white NN O I-PAR
spot NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
WSL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
14.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
exhibiting NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
152 NN O I-PAR
visible NN O I-PAR
WSL NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
incisors NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
canines NN O I-PAR
immediately NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
debonding NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fixed NN O I-PAR
orthodontic NN O I-PAR
appliances NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
bracket NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
professional NN O I-INT
tooth NN O I-INT
cleaning NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
drying NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
scoring NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0-4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
fluorescence NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
readings NN O I-INT
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
protocols NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
remineralising NN O O
the NN O O
lesions NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
applications NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
CPP-ACP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Topacal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
toothbrushing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fluoridated NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
0.05 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
mouthwash NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fluoridated NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
registrations NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
aid NN O O
of NN O O
chi-square NN O O
and NN O O
paired NN O O
t-tests NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
WSL-scores NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sites NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
totally NN O I-OUT
disappeared NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CPP-ACP NN O O
regime NN O O
, NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
registrations NN O O
were NN O O
mirrored NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LF NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
6- NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
displayed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
scoring NN O O
and NN O O
LF NN O O
assessment NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
could NN O O
promote NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
WSL NN O O
after NN O O
debonding NN O O
of NN O O
fixed NN O O
orthodontic NN O O
appliances NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
visual NN O O
evaluation NN O O
suggested NN O O
an NN O O
aesthetically NN O O
more NN O O
favourable NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
amorphous NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1799151)

Intra-operative NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
neurosurgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
cefotiam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cefotiam NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
wound NN O O
infections NN O O
following NN O O
trepanations NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
interest NN O O
was NN O O
centered NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
post-operative NN O O
bone NN O O
flap NN O O
infections NN O O
requiring NN O O
operative NN O O
revision NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
cefotiam NN O I-INT
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
craniotomies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
with NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Only NN O I-PAR
clean NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
clean NN O I-PAR
contaminated NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Excluded NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
contaminated NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
operations NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
transnasal-transsphenoidal NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
shunt-operations NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outpatients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
obtaining NN O I-PAR
sufficient NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
information NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
originally NN O I-PAR
918 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
711 NN O I-PAR
fulfilled NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
regard NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
site NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
te NN O I-PAR
trepanation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
355 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cefotiam NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
356 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
shown NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
comparable NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
subgroups NN O O
formed NN O O
for NN O O
different NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
diagnoses NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-INT
steroidal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
concomitant NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
internal NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
cefotiam NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
for NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
flap NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
shown NN O O
with NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cefotiam NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
5.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
meningitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abscesses NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
different NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
3.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cefotiam NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
9.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
cefotiam NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17997772)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
for NN O O
chalazia NN O O
: NN O O
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
and NN O O
curettage NN O I-INT
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
hot NN O I-INT
compresses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Three NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
chalazia NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
: NN O O
intralesional NN O I-INT
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/mL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
curettage NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
regarding NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hot NN O I-INT
compresses NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
affected NN O I-INT
eyelid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
centre NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
chalazion NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
. NN O O

Chalazion NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inconvenience NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
assessed NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
interview NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
136 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
the NN O O
3-week NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
and NN O O
surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
at NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
47/56 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
39/45 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conservative NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
16/35 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
triamcinolone NN O O
injection NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Inconvenience NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
as NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triamcinolone NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
conservative NN O O
and NN O O
surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conservative NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
which NN O O
in NN O O
turn NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
regarding NN O O
this NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
chalazia NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
lid NN O O
massage NN O O
is NN O O
almost NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
incision NN O I-INT
and NN O O
curettage NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chalazia NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
inconvenience NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18004169)

A NN O O
systems NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
obstetric NN O O
triage NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variables NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
obstetric NN O I-PAR
triage NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O O
effort NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
delivery NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
high-volume NN O O
obstetric NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
efficient NN O O
triage NN O O
system NN O O
is NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
busy NN O O
labor NN O O
and NN O O
delivery NN O O
unit NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
unscheduled NN O O
patient NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
hospitals NN O O
that NN O O
lack NN O O
an NN O O
efficient NN O O
obstetric NN O O
triage NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
very NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
regulate NN O O
patient NN O O
flow NN O O
and NN O O
wait NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
triage NN O O
room NN O O
and/or NN O O
standing NN O O
orders NN O O
decreased NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
existing NN O O
system NN O O
of NN O O
evaluating NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
rooms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
2 NN O O
separate NN O O
phases NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
triage NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
triage NN O I-INT
room NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
labor NN O I-INT
room NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
room NN O O
assignment NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
room NN O O
assignment NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
of NN O O
standing NN O I-INT
orders NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
common NN O I-INT
obstetric NN O I-INT
problems NN O I-INT
were NN O O
utilized NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
398 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
took NN O O
place NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
midsize NN O O
labor NN O O
and NN O O
delivery NN O O
unit NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
academic NN O O
medical NN O O
center NN O O
averaging NN O O
3600 NN O O
births NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
triage NN O O
room NN O O
and/or NN O O
standing NN O O
orders NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
decrease NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
triage NN O O
process NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
is NN O O
strongly NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
provider NN O O
's NN O O
availability NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
, NN O O
triage NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
discharge NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18026891)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
maintenance NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
continuation NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
study NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
week NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Behavioral NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Ritvo-Freeman NN O I-OUT
Real NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
RF-RLRS NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Turgay NN O I-OUT
DSM-IV NN O I-OUT
Pervasive NN O I-OUT
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Disorder NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
TPDDRS NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
Symptoms NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
ESRS NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
UKU-Side NN O I-OUT
Effect NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimen NN O O
as NN O O
0.01-0.08 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Risperidone NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
RF-RLRS NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
risperidone NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
haloperidol NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
risperidone NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
efficacious NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
than NN O O
haloperidol NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
maintenance NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18029492)

Several NN O O
indicators NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
trained NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
consuming NN O O
an NN O O
encapsulated NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
28 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Phytonutrients NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
plant NN O I-INT
foods NN O I-INT
provide NN O O
numerous NN O O
antioxidants NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
supplementation NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
wk NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
commercially NN O I-INT
available NN O I-INT
encapsulated NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
JPC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
could NN O O
influence NN O O
indicators NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Trained NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
maximum NN O I-PAR
oxygen NN O I-PAR
uptake NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
mL NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
homogenous NN O I-PAR
police NN O I-PAR
Special NN O I-PAR
Forces NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
manner NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
JPC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
multiple NN O O
7-d NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
records NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
assess NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
found NN O O
inadequate NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
fruit NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
vegetable NN O I-PAR
consumption NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3.2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.2 NN O I-PAR
servings NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
group NN O O
physician NN O O
documented NN O O
all NN O O
duty NN O O
days NN O O
lost NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
illness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O I-INT
collected NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
carbonyl NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNFalpha NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Over NN O O
the NN O O
28-wk NN O O
investigation NN O O
, NN O O
CP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
JPC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
time NN O O
x NN O O
treatment NN O O
interaction NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
CP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNFalpha NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
16 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
wk NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
JPC NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

TNFalpha NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
8 NN O O
wk NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
20 NN O O
wk NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
20 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
more NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
illness NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
JPC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.068 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
beneficial NN O O
JPC NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
duty NN O O
days NN O O
lost NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
illness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
CP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNFalpha NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
wk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18040663)

Intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
microvascular NN O O
reactivity NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Macrovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
rates NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
vascular NN O O
impairment NN O O
begins NN O O
in NN O O
childhood NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
introducing NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
diabetes NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
IIT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
'Sweet NN O I-INT
Talk NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
text-messaging NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
measurable NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
fulfilled NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
eligibility NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
CIT NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=28 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CIT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Sweet NN O I-INT
Talk NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=33 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
IIT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Sweet NN O I-INT
Talk NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=31 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Vascular NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Glycaemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
deteriorated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
CIT NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
IIT NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IIT NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
CIT NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.026 NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.053 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Vascular NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
acetylcholine NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
IIT NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
CIT NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
HbA1c NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION NN O O
IIT NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
independently NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
HbA1c NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
IIT NN O O
may NN O O
confer NN O O
vascular NN O O
protection NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
improving NN O O
glycaemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18054932)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
cetrorelix NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O I-OUT
luteinizing NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
surge NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
controlled NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
using NN O O
letrozole NN O O
and NN O O
gonadotropins NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
GnRH NN O O
antagonist NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
premature NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
surge NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
a NN O O
letrozole NN O O
and NN O O
gonadotropin NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O O
teaching NN O O
hospital NN O O
and NN O O
tertiary NN O O
medical NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O I-INT
letrozole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gonadotropin-treated NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
were NN O O
distinguished NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
presence NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cetrorelix NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Controlled NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
letrozole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gonadotropins NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cetrorelix NN O I-INT
and NN O O
intrauterine NN O O
insemination NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
surge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
surge NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
43.4 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
13/30 NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
6/31 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gonadotropins NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
817.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
907.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
27.3 NN O O
IU NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
premature NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
surge NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
21.4 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
9/42 NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
0 NN O O
[ NN O O
0/18 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
unaffected NN O O
counterparts NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
flexible NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
0.25 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
cetrorelix NN O I-INT
for NN O O
IUI NN O O
cycles NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
suppress NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
surge NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
letrozole NN O O
and NN O O
gonadotropins NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
surge NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
too NN O O
high NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
modification NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
cetrorelix NN O O
to NN O O
IVF NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18073312)

Short-term NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
improves NN O O
whole-body NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
through NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
hepatic NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Short-term NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
whole-body NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
contributions NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O O
and NN O O
hepatic NN O O
tissues NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
improvements NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
7-d NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O O
on NN O O
peripheral NN O O
and NN O O
hepatic NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
during NN O O
isoglycemic/hyperinsulinemic NN O O
clamp NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
energy NN O I-INT
balance NN O I-INT
group NN O O
consumed NN O O
an NN O I-INT
isocaloric NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
d. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
energy NN O I-INT
balance NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
consumed NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
50-min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
15-d NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
subject NN O O
underwent NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
isoglycemic/hyperinsulinemic NN O I-INT
clamp NN O I-INT
after NN O O
1-wk NN O O
dietary NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
clamp NN O O
after NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Ohio NN O I-PAR
State NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
General NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
There NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
d. NN O O
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Whole-body NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
endogenous NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O O
state NN O O
or NN O O
low-dose NN O O
insulin NN O O
. NN O O

Likewise NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
endogenous NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
high-dose NN O O
insulin NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
1-wk NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
both NN O O
whole-body NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
high-dose NN O O
insulin NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Improvements NN O O
to NN O O
whole NN O O
body NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
after NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O O
are NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
heptic NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18080171)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AD NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Autistic NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AD NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
DSM NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Behavioral NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
investigators NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
included NN O O
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
electroencephalogram NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
0.01-0.08 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
reduction NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
Ritvo-Freeman NN O I-OUT
Real NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RF-RLRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
risperidone NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
haloperidol NN O O
, NN O O
risperidone NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Turgay NN O I-OUT
DSM-IV NN O I-OUT
Pervasive NN O I-OUT
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PDD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
alanine NN O I-OUT
amino NN O I-OUT
transferase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ALT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
further NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
haloperidol NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Sensory NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
12th NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
RF-RLRS NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O O
group NN O O
further NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Risperidone NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
haloperidol NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impulsivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
impaired NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
relations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
AD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18157013)

Minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
treatment NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
cytokine-induced NN O I-INT
killer NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
lower NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
( NN O O
HCC NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
frequent NN O O
. NN O O

Adoptive NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
recurrence NN O O
and NN O O
metastasis NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
malignant NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
transcatheter NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
chemoembolization NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autologous NN O I-INT
cytokine-induced NN O I-INT
killer NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CIK NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
transfused NN O I-INT
via NN O O
hepatic NN O O
artery NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
alteration NN O O
of NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
subsets NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
computed NN O I-PAR
tomography NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
observe NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
CIK NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
infusions NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD3+ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD4+ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD56+ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD3+CD56+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD4+/CD8+ NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
68.6+/-11.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
31.1+/-9.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
15.6+/-7.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
5.2+/-3.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.1+/-0.5 NN O O
to NN O O
70.7+/-10.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
33.5+/-8.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
18.4+/-9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
5.9+/-2.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.3+/-0.7 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
31.1+/-7.8 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
28.6+/-8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
18-month NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
8.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
15.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
30.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
40.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
value NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
CIK NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
transfusion NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
can NN O O
boost NN O O
the NN O O
immunologic NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
HCC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
plays NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
HCC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18161643)

Improving NN O O
the NN O O
transition NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
residential NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
outpatient NN O I-INT
addiction NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
gender NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
supportive NN O O
telephone NN O O
calls NN O O
. NN O O

Substance NN O O
use NN O O
relapse NN O O
rates NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
inpatient NN O I-INT
substance NN O I-INT
abuse NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
aftercare NN O I-OUT
plans NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
low NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
residential NN O I-PAR
addiction NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
post-discharge NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
intended NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
encourage NN O I-INT
compliance NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
aftercare NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
282 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
182 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
findings NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
men NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O I-OUT
aftercare NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
gender NN O O
effect NN O O
persisted NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O O
mediators NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18165484)

The NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
parasitologic NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
for NN O O
malaria-suspected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O O
era NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
artemisinin-based NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
sub-Saharan NN O I-PAR
Africa NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
prompted NN O O
calls NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
parasitologic NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
for NN O O
malaria NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rapid NN O I-INT
diagnostic NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RDTs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
microscopy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
guiding NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
non-severe NN O O
febrile NN O O
illness NN O O
at NN O O
varying NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
malaria NN O O
endemicity NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
test NN O O
accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Tanzanian NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
If NN O O
prescribers NN O O
complied NN O O
with NN O O
current NN O O
guidelines NN O O
, NN O O
microscopy NN O O
would NN O O
give NN O O
rise NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
average NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
patient NN O O
correctly NN O O
treated NN O O
than NN O O
RDTs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
high NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
transmission NN O O
. NN O O

RDT NN O O
introduction NN O O
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
9.4 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
correctly NN O I-OUT
treated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
incremental NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
$ NN O O
25 NN O O
and NN O O
$ NN O O
7 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
transmission NN O O
settings NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
would NN O O
be NN O O
worse NN O O
if NN O O
prescribers NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
comply NN O O
with NN O O
test NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
many NN O O
countries NN O O
can NN O O
afford NN O O
without NN O O
external NN O O
assistance NN O O
or NN O O
lower NN O O
RDT NN O O
prices NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18243378)

A NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
production NN O O
and NN O O
financial NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
helminthosis NN O O
control NN O O
in NN O O
sheep NN O I-PAR
production NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Ethiopia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
partial-budget NN O O
analysis NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
profitability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
different NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
genotypes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sheep NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
factorial NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Debre NN O I-PAR
Berhan NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
station NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
highlands NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Ethiopia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
involved NN O O
two NN O I-INT
anthelmintic-treatment NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
non-treated NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
supplementary NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
protein-energy NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
yes/no NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
genotypes NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
indigenous NN O I-INT
Menz NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=40 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Awassi NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Menz NN O I-INT
crosses NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=38 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Awassi NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Menz NN O I-PAR
crosses NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=31 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
sheep NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
natural NN O I-INT
sub-clinical NN O I-INT
helminthosis NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Supplemented NN O O
sheep NN O O
were NN O O
offered NN O O
a NN O O
concentrate NN O I-INT
mix NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
on NN O O
an NN O O
individual NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

Anthelmintic-treated NN O I-INT
sheep NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
drenched NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fenbendazole NN O I-INT
against NN O I-INT
nematodes NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
triclabendazole NN O I-INT
against NN O I-INT
trematodes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
approximately NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
feed NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
live NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eggs NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
gram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EPG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
faeces NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
packed-cell NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PCV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wool NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adult-worm NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Actual NN O O
market NN O I-OUT
input NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
prices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Supplemented NN O O
sheep NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
marginal NN O I-OUT
profit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
sheep NN O O
than NN O O
non-supplemented NN O O
sheep NN O O
( NN O O
ETB NN O O
33 NN O O
vs. NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Likewise NN O O
, NN O O
anthelmintic NN O O
treated NN O O
sheep NN O O
performed NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
their NN O O
non-treated NN O O
contemporaries NN O O
( NN O O
MP=ETB NN O O
28 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
Awassi NN O O
crosses NN O O
were NN O O
least NN O O
profitable NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18246895)

Cryotherapy NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
peroneal NN O O
reaction NN O O
following NN O O
sudden NN O O
inversion NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
If NN O O
ankle NN O O
joint NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
impairs NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ankle NN O O
musculature NN O O
to NN O O
counteract NN O O
potentially NN O O
injurious NN O O
forces NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ankle NN O O
is NN O O
left NN O O
vulnerable NN O O
to NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
peroneal NN O O
reaction NN O O
to NN O O
sudden NN O O
inversion NN O O
following NN O O
ankle NN O O
joint NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
independent NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
post NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
post NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
post NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
OR NN O O
OTHER NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Twenty-seven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
An NN O O
ice NN O O
bag NN O O
was NN O O
secured NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lateral NN O O
ankle NN O O
joint NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
square NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
peroneal NN O I-OUT
muscles NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
trap NN O I-OUT
door NN O I-OUT
mechanism NN O I-OUT
causing NN O I-OUT
inversion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
peroneal NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
peroneal NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
post NN O O
treatment NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Cryotherapy NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
peroneal NN O O
muscle NN O O
reaction NN O O
following NN O O
sudden NN O O
inversion NN O O
perturbation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18251162)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
K2 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/AIMS NN O O
Vitamin NN O I-INT
K2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VK2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
activity NN O O
for NN O O
cell NN O O
growth NN O O
including NN O O
HCC NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
VK2 NN O I-INT
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
recurrence NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HCC NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cured NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
possibly NN O I-PAR
cured NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
, NN O O
assigning NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
n=21 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=24 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
randomization NN O O
list NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY NN O O
For NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
forty-five NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
Glakay NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
every NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
HCC NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patients NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Abdominal NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
and NN O O
dynamic NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
abdominal NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HCC NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
50.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
mean NN O O
observation NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
19.5 NN O O
and NN O O
16.5 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
VK2 NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
variable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Cumulative NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HCC NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
=0.054 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
alone NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
factor NN O O
affecting NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
VK2 NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HCC NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
curative NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
preliminary NN O O
and NN O O
large-scale NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
VK2 NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HCC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18289310)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
abomasal NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
suckling NN O I-PAR
calves NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Commonly NN O O
used NN O O
dosage NN O O
protocols NN O O
for NN O O
antimicrobial NN O O
agents NN O O
may NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Parenteral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
and NN O O
gentamicin NN O O
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
abomasal NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
ANIMALS NN O O
Five NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
Holstein-Friesian NN O I-PAR
calves NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8-15 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Calves NN O O
received NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
4 NN O O
IM NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
: NN O O
control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
NaCl NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
erythromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8.8 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4.4 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6.6 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Abomasal NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
rate NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Calves NN O O
were NN O O
fed NN O O
2 NN O O
L NN O O
of NN O O
cow NN O O
's NN O O
milk NN O O
containing NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
jugular NN O O
venous NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
periodically NN O O
after NN O O
suckling NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximum NN O O
observed NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
acetaminophen NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
actual NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
actual NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
actual NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
modeling NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
model NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
model NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Erythromycin NN O O
increased NN O O
abomasal NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
actual NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
model NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Abomasal NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
gentamicin NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
gentamicin NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
actual NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P= NN O O
.021 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
model NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P= NN O O
.62 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
IM NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
erythromycin NN O O
increased NN O O
abomasal NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
dairy NN O I-PAR
calves NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
low-dose NN O O
and NN O O
high-dose NN O O
gentamicin NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
abomasal NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
acetaminophen NN O O
kinetics NN O O
and NN O O
glucose NN O O
absorption NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18298579)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
antiviral NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
enteric-coated NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
antiviral NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
enteric-coated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
didanosine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ddI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
28-day NN O O
ddI-EC NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
monotherapy-administered NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
fasted NN O I-INT
state NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=11 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment-na?ve NN O I-PAR
chronically NN O I-PAR
HIV-1-infected NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
antiviral NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
weekly NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
RNA NN O O
curve NN O O
minus NN O O
baseline NN O O
weighted NN O O
by NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUCMB/day NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.2 NN O O
log NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3.8 NN O O
log NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.99 NN O O
log NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
0.45-1.53 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
0.89 NN O O
log NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.38-1.40 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

AUCMB/day NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.775 NN O O
log NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.33-1.22 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.774 NN O O
log NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.48-1.07 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.995 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
ddI NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
were NN O O
0.0234 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
0.0227 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.96 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
antiviral NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ddI-EC NN O I-OUT
capsules NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18318721)

Split-face NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
erbium NN O I-INT
micropeel NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intense NN O I-INT
pulsed NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
photorejuvenative NN O O
techniques NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
utilized NN O O
to NN O O
reverse NN O O
the NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
photoaging NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
ablative NN O O
and NN O O
nonablative NN O O
laser NN O O
resurfacing NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
light-based NN O O
devices NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
split-face NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
open-label NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
erbium NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
yttrium-aluminum-garnet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Er NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
intense NN O I-INT
pulsed NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IPL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
photodamage NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
35-63 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
dyschromia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
rhytides NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
J/cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
pattern NN O I-INT
overlap NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
interpulse NN O I-INT
overlap NN O I-INT
, NN O O
15 NN O O
microm NN O O
per NN O O
pass NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
coagulation NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
IPL NN O I-INT
( NN O O
560-nm NN O O
filter NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
J/cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2.4/4.0-ms NN O O
pulse NN O O
with NN O O
10-ms NN O O
delay NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
receiving NN O O
three NN O O
sequential NN O O
treatments NN O O
spaced NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
apart NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O O
and NN O O
blinded NN O O
physician NN O O
evaluations NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
weeks NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
nominal NN O O
scale NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Erythema NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
following NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
photodamage NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
pass NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
IPL NN O O
or NN O O
Er NN O O
: NN O O
YAG NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
split-face NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
received NN O O
three NN O O
treatments NN O O
each NN O O
spaced NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
apart NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
withdrew NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
Er NN O O
: NN O O
YAG NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
blinded NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
dyschromia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rhytid NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
IPL NN O O
and NN O O
Er NN O O
: NN O O
YAG NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
sides NN O O
. NN O O

Up NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
IPL NN O O
or NN O O
Er NN O O
: NN O O
YAG NN O O
treatments NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
rhytid NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blinded NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
dyschromia NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
26 NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
IPL NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
by NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
Er NN O O
: NN O O
YAG NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
worsened NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
while NN O O
blinded NN O O
physician NN O O
scores NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
Er NN O O
: NN O O
YAG NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
by NN O O
28 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
IPL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
downtime NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
for NN O O
Er NN O O
: NN O O
YAG NN O O
( NN O O
1/10 NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
hyperpigmentation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
3/10 NN O O
exfoliation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1/10 NN O O
blistering NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
5/10 NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
IPL NN O O
( NN O O
1/10 NN O O
exfoliation NN O O
and NN O O
1/10 NN O O
discomfort NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
no NN O O
permanent NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
While NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
erbium NN O O
resurfacing NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
facial NN O I-PAR
photodamage NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
patients NN O O
preferred NN O O
IPL NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
downtime NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
have NN O O
indicated NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
interest NN O O
with NN O O
commercial NN O O
supporters NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18330493)

Allopurinol NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
oxidant-inflammatory NN O O
enzyme NN O O
of NN O O
myeloperoxidase NN O O
in NN O O
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
whether NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
through NN O O
decreasing NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
improves NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ameliorates NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
state NN O O
represented NN O O
by NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
myeloperoxidase NN O O
, NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CRP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fibrinogen NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
; NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allopurinol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
flow-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
isosorbide NN O I-OUT
dinitrate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ISDN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O O
artery NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
, NN O O
FMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
8.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
11.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
ISDN-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
myeloperoxidase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
( NN O O
56.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
vs. NN O O
44.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.4 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Surprisingly NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
CRP NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Xanthine NN O O
oxidoreductase NN O O
inhibition NN O O
by NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
reduces NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improves NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ameliorates NN O I-OUT
myeloperoxidase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
CRP NN O O
and NN O O
fibrinogen NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1833682)

Desogestrel NN O O
and NN O O
gestodene NN O O
in NN O O
oral NN O O
contraceptives NN O O
: NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
and NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
metabolism NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OCs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
two NN O O
new NN O O
third-generation NN O O
progestogens NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
desogestrel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gestodene NN O I-INT
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
monophasic NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
150 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
desogestrel NN O I-INT
or NN O O
30 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
gestodene NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
including NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
determined NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
subfractions NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein2 NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein3 NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
very NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
despite NN O O
unchanged NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
compounds NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
very NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol/total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ethinyl NN O O
E2-desogestrel NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
persistent NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
compound NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
known NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18353086)

Does NN O O
surface NN O O
preparation NN O O
alter NN O O
ALA NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
superficial NN O O
non-melanoma NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
? NN O O
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE NN O O
Photodynamic NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
PDT NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
aminolaevulinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
non-melanoma NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Surface NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
lesion NN O O
is NN O O
commonly NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
ALA NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preparation NN O O
varies NN O O
from NN O O
centre NN O O
to NN O O
centre NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
no NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
surface NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
uptake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ALA NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
recording NN O O
fluorescence NN O O
from NN O O
accumulated NN O O
protoporphyrin NN O O
IX NN O O
( NN O O
PPIX NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Bowen NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lesion NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
surface NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
surface NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
gentle NN O I-INT
curettage NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
abrasion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
spatula NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

ALA NN O O
was NN O O
left NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
BCC NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
BD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PPIX NN O I-OUT
fluorescence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
excitation NN O O
wavelength NN O O
of NN O O
405+/-5 NN O O
nm NN O O
and NN O O
emission NN O O
spectrum NN O O
recorded NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
photodiode NN O I-INT
array NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Spectra NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
surface NN O O
preparation NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
at NN O O
630 NN O O
nm NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fluorescence NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
incubation NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
that NN O O
before NN O O
incubation NN O O
was NN O O
6.1+/-1.2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-prepared NN O O
section NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
increased NN O O
slightly NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
to NN O O
6.8 NN O O
+/-1.8 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prepared NN O O
section NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
curettage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abrasion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
PDT NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
assessment NN O O
agrees NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
fluorescence NN O O
data NN O O
as NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
prepared NN O O
and NN O O
unprepared NN O O
halves NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lesion NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
PDT NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
BCC NN O O
and NN O O
BD NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
surface NN O O
preparation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
ALA NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18374024)

New NN O I-INT
introducer NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
gastropexy NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
require NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
: NN O O
multicenter NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Peristomal NN O O
infections NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
PEG NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
introducer NN O O
PEG-placement NN O O
technique NN O O
avoids NN O O
the NN O O
sojourn NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
PEG NN O O
catheter NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
oropharynx NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hence NN O O
minimizes NN O O
the NN O O
chances NN O O
of NN O O
infectious NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
obvious NN O O
potential NN O O
advantage NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
technique NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
gain NN O O
popularity NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
associated NN O O
risks NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
introducer NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
PEG-gastropexy NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
quite NN O O
safe NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
for NN O O
introducer NN O O
PEG NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
peristomal NN O O
wound NN O O
infections NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
7-day NN O O
postprocedure NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTINGS NN O O
Multicenter NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
tertiary-care NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
633 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
PEG NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
inclusion NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
stenotic NN O I-PAR
oropharyngeal NN O I-PAR
stricture NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
49 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Introducer NN O O
PEG NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Freka NN O O
Pexact-15 NN O O
CH/FR NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
wall NN O O
nonsurgically NN O O
sutured NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
abdominal NN O O
wall NN O O
by NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
endoscope NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
peristomal NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
types NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Clinically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
marginally NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
7-day NN O O
post-PEG NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
introducer NN O O
gastropexy NN O O
kit NN O O
is NN O O
5 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
expensive NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
pull NN O O
PEG NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
introducer NN O I-INT
PEG-gastropexy NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
safely NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
potentially NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
peristomal NN O I-PAR
infectious NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
oropharyngeal NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
NCT00375414 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18376682)

Post-laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetics NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O O
control NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
generally NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
open NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
shoulder NN O O
and NN O O
abdominal NN O O
pain NN O O
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
still NN O O
causes NN O O
preventable NN O O
distress NN O O
. NN O O

Intraperitoneal NN O O
irrigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diaphragmatic NN O O
surface NN O O
and NN O O
gallbladder NN O O
fossa NN O O
using NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
effectively NN O O
control NN O O
visceral NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
an NN O O
LC NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
demographics NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
LC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
including NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
control NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
with NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
with NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
D NN O O
with NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
preperitoneal NN O O
abdominal NN O O
wall NN O O
infiltration NN O O
with NN O O
0.25 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
control NN O O
parietal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
somatic NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
shoulder NN O O
and NN O O
abdominal NN O O
pain NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
points NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Analgesia NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Lignocaine NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Bowel NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
irrigation NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
visceral NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
LC NN O O
. NN O O

Lignocaine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
efficacious NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
at NN O O
recommended NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18390022)

Enrollment NN O O
of NN O O
racial NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ethnic NN O I-PAR
minorities NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Lung NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Colorectal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Ovarian NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Minority NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
especially NN O I-PAR
blacks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Hispanics NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
are NN O O
generally NN O O
underrepresented NN O O
among NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
enrolling NN O O
ethnic NN O I-PAR
minorities NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
Prostate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Colorectal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Lung NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Ovarian NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLCO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Cancer NN O I-INT
Screening NN O I-INT
Trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PLCO NN O I-INT
cancers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
U.S. NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
screening NN O O
center NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
special NN O I-INT
recruitment NN O I-INT
effort NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
blacks NN O I-INT
and NN O O
another NN O O
center NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
special NN O I-INT
recruitment NN O I-INT
effort NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Hispanics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
almost NN O O
155,000 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
PLCO NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
minority NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
follows NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Asian NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
compares NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
age-eligible NN O O
population NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
catchment NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PLCO NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
14.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Asian NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
age-eligible NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
across NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
U.S. NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
9.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Asian NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
About NN O O
half NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Hispanics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
recruitment NN O I-PAR
effort NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventy NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
blacks NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
recruitment NN O I-PAR
effort NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
center NN O O
in NN O O
Detroit NN O O
whose NN O O
catchment NN O O
area NN O O
was NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
black NN O O
among NN O O
age-eligibles NN O O
. NN O O

Blacks NN O O
, NN O O
Hispanics NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
non-Hispanic NN O O
) NN O O
whites NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
more NN O O
highly NN O O
educated NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
currently NN O I-OUT
smoke NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
get NN O O
regular NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
their NN O O
counterparts NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Significant NN O O
efforts NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
recruit NN O O
racial/ NN O O
ethnic NN O O
minorities NN O O
into NN O O
PLCO NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
these NN O O
efforts NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
enrollment NN O O
levels NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
recent NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
or NN O O
prevention NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Blacks NN O O
and NN O O
Hispanics NN O O
were NN O O
nonetheless NN O O
underrepresented NN O O
in NN O O
PLCO NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
levels NN O O
among NN O O
age-eligibles NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
U.S. NN O O
population NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aggregate NN O O
PLCO NN O O
catchment NN O O
areas NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18394874)

Benzodiazepine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
opioid NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
attenuate NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
fiberoptic NN O I-OUT
bronchoscopy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Prophylactic NN O O
labetalol NN O O
gave NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
tachycardia NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
during NN O O
fiber-optic NN O I-INT
bronchoscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FOB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
cardiac NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
beta-adrenergic NN O I-INT
anatagonist NN O I-INT
might NN O O
mask NN O O
this NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
deleterious NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FOB NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
10mg NN O I-INT
iv NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
midazolam-alfentanil NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
monitored NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP/DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
calculated NN O O
the NN O O
rate-pressure NN O O
product NN O O
( NN O O
RPP= NN O O
( NN O O
HRxSBP NN O O
) NN O O
/100 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One-hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
RPP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
bronchoscopy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
interventional NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
lower NN O O
SBP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
FOB NN O I-PAR
under NN O O
adequate NN O O
midazolam-alfentanil NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
do NN O O
not NN O O
develop NN O O
excessive NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
drive NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
cardiac NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
confer NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
or NN O O
risk NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00394537 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18397386)

Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
predicts NN O O
EVR NN O O
and NN O O
SVR NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HCV NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
peginterferon NN O I-PAR
alpha-2a NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-PAR
ribavirin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O O
drug NN O O
exposure NN O O
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
routine NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
peginterferon NN O O
alpha-2a NN O O
and NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
on NN O O
early NN O O
virological NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
EVR NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
virological NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
SVR NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
treatment-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HCV NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
expanded NN O I-PAR
access NN O I-PAR
programme NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ninety-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
ribavirin NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
1000/1200 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Ribavirin NN O I-INT
1000 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
75 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or=75 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
180 NN O I-INT
microg/week NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
optimal NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
optimal NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
EVR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
ribavirin NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
week NN O O
0-12 NN O O
was NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
800 NN O O
and NN O O
1000/1200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

EVR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
800 NN O O
than NN O O
1000/1200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
EVR NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
SVR NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
EVR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
dose NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
expressed NN O O
either NN O O
as NN O O
absolute NN O O
dose NN O O
or NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
received NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Ribavirin NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
EVR NN O O
and NN O O
SVR NN O O
in NN O O
genotype NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
optimal NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
dose NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
modifiable NN O O
factor NN O O
during NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18410301)

Genital NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
arousal NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Most NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
treatments NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
currently NN O O
being NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
arousal NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
remedying NN O O
a NN O O
vasculogenic NN O O
deficit NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
pre- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
arousal NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
less NN O O
genitally NN O O
responsive NN O O
to NN O O
visual NN O O
sexual NN O O
stimuli NN O O
than NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
women NN O O
without NN O O
sexual NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
medically NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
arousal NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4th NN O I-PAR
Edition NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
shown NN O O
sexual NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
depicting NN O I-INT
cunnilingus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intercourse NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
Genital NN O O
arousal NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
photoplethysmography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
VPA NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
nor NN O O
in NN O O
latency NN O O
of NN O O
VPA NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
arousal NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
less NN O O
genitally NN O O
responsive NN O O
to NN O O
visual NN O O
sexual NN O O
stimuli NN O O
than NN O O
women NN O O
without NN O O
such NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
in NN O O
line NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sexual NN O O
problems NN O O
these NN O O
women NN O O
report NN O O
are NN O O
clearly NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
become NN O O
genitally NN O O
aroused NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
argue NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
DSM-IV NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
sexual NN O O
arousal NN O O
disorder NN O O
are NN O O
in NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
revision NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
medically NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
impaired NN O O
genital NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
valid NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
criterion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18431478)

Does NN O O
3-day NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
benefit NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
non-severe NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
wheeze NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicentric NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
WHO-defined NN O O
pneumonias NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
developing NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Since NN O O
substantial NN O O
proportion NN O O
pneumonias NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
viral NN O O
etiology NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
children NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
present NN O O
with NN O O
wheeze NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
concern NN O O
that NN O O
currently NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
are NN O O
being NN O O
over-prescribed NN O O
for NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
objective NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
equivalence NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-severe NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
wheeze NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
fast NN O I-PAR
breathing NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
nebulisation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
salbutamol NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
chest NN O I-PAR
radiograph NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODOLOGY NN O O
This NN O O
multi-centric NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
equivalent NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
care NN O O
settings NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
government NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2-59 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
oral NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
31-54 NN O O
mg/Kg/day NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
bronchodilator NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
day- NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
We NN O O
randomized NN O O
836 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
835 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
amoxycillin NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
201 NN O O
( NN O O
24.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
166 NN O O
( NN O O
19.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
risk NN O O
difference NN O O
4.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.2 NN O O
to NN O O
8.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adherence NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
> NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
98.9 NN O O
% NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
on NN O O
day- NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.28 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.01 NN O O
to1.62 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
excess NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
breaths NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
minute NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.51 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.19 NN O O
, NN O O
1.92 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
iii NN O O
) NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
enrolment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.49 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.13 NN O O
, NN O O
1.96 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
iv NN O O
) NN O O
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
broncho-dilators NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.71 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.30 NN O O
, NN O O
2.24 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
v NN O O
) NN O O
non-adherence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
8.06 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
4.36 NN O O
, NN O O
14.92 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treating NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-severe NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
wheeze NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
NCT00407394 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18443393)

A NN O O
pilot NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
functional NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1849786)

Symptomatic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
87 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inoperable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
at NN O O
70 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
intravenously NN O O
[ NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

] NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
at NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
orally NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
major NN O O
problem NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
semicurative NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
3000 NN O O
to NN O O
4200 NN O O
cGy NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
tumor NN O O
and NN O O
mediastinum NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
with NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
intent NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
survivors NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
seen NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
latter NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1854617)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O O
dosage NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sequential NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Mtx NN O O
) NN O O
absorption NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O O
127 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
non-T NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
serum NN O O
drug NN O O
concentration NN O O
, NN O O
clearance NN O O
and NN O O
dosage NN O O
affect NN O O
event NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
EFS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
serum NN O O
concentration NN O O
and NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentration NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
EFS NN O O
. NN O O

Methotrexate NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
tolerated NN O O
only NN O O
low NN O O
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6-MP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
neutropaenia NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
randomly NN O O
were NN O O
prescribed NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
Mtx NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leukaemia NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
maximally NN O O
tolerated NN O O
doses NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18565251)

Intra-articular NN O O
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ankle NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
functional NN O O
parameters NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ankle NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
43 NN O I-PAR
ankles NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
Kellgren NN O I-PAR
Lawrence NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
three NN O I-INT
intra-articular NN O I-INT
HA NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
one-week NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
or NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O I-OUT
Orthopaedic NN O I-OUT
Foot NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Ankle NN O I-OUT
Society NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AOFAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Ankle-Hindfoot NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
followed-up NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Total NN O I-OUT
AOFAS NN O I-OUT
Ankle-Hindfoot NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OA NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
varying NN O O
from NN O O
61.6+/-16.8 NN O O
to NN O O
90.1+/-9.7 NN O O
with NN O O
HA NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
72.1+/-16.6 NN O O
to NN O O
87.5+/-17.5 NN O O
using NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
confirmed NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
HA NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
provide NN O O
functional NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
larger NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
definite NN O O
conclusions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1857873)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
amphotericin NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18581595)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
supervised NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Postoperative NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
associated NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
supervised NN O O
moderate-intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
could NN O O
mitigate NN O O
the NN O O
complications NN O O
that NN O O
occur NN O O
during NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
various NN O O
operations NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Seventeen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
supervised NN O I-INT
moderate-intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
50 NN O O
min NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O I-INT
self-shoulder NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Organization NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life-BREF NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WHOQOL-BREF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
brief NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BFI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
noted NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WHOQOL-BREF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BFI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WHOQOL-BREF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BFI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WHOQOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BFI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
aspects NN O O
from NN O O
supervised NN O I-INT
moderate-intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18606932)

Complementary NN O O
feeding NN O O
with NN O O
fortified NN O O
spread NN O O
and NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
stunting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
6- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
18-month-old NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
Malawians NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
malnutrition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
dietary NN O I-PAR
supplementation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ready-to-use NN O I-PAR
fortified NN O I-INT
spread NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
micronutrient-fortified NN O I-INT
maize-soy NN O I-INT
flour NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
likuni NN O I-INT
phala NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-PAR
LP NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Rural NN O O
Malawi NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
182 NN O I-PAR
six-month-old NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
71 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
LP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
282 NN O O
kcal NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
FS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FS50 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
256 NN O O
kcal NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
25 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
FS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FS25 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
130 NN O O
[ NN O O
corrected NN O O
] NN O O
kcal NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
stunting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
underweight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
wasting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
LP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
FS50 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
FS25 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
2.37 NN O O
, NN O O
2.47 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.37 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.66 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12.7 NN O O
, NN O O
13.5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13.2 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.23 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O O
12-month NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
stunting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
underweight NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
15.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
22.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
16.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.71 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
wasting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
LP-supplemented NN O I-INT
infants NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
FS50 NN O O
gained NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
g NN O O
more NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
0.8 NN O O
cm NN O O
more NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
length NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
below-median NN O O
length NN O O
at NN O O
enrollment NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
FS50 NN O O
gained NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
1.9 NN O O
cm NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
individuals NN O O
receiving NN O O
LP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
One-year-long NN O O
complementary NN O O
feeding NN O O
with NN O O
FS NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
effect NN O O
than NN O O
LP NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
infants NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
boost NN O O
linear NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
disadvantaged NN O O
individuals NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
hence NN O O
, NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
stunting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18609155)

Central NN O O
neuronal NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
gastroparesis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
symptom NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
gastric NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

Modulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
excitability NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
involved NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
GES NN O I-INT
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
visceral NN O O
sensory NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
gastric NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulator NN O I-INT
was NN O O
implanted NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
medically NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
gastroparesis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
protocol NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
recovery NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
stimulator NN O O
turned NN O O
on NN O O
and NN O O
off NN O O
( NN O O
1-month NN O O
periods NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
: NN O O
mechanical NN O O
, NN O O
thermal NN O O
and NN O O
electrical NN O O
stimulations NN O O
with NN O O
sensory NN O O
recordings NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
esophagus NN O O
and NN O O
duodenum NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
standardized NN O O
, NN O O
self-administered NN O O
, NN O O
daily NN O O
symptom NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
on- NN O O
and NN O O
off NN O O
periods NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
gut NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
stimulus NN O O
modalities NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
esophagus NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.63 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
duodenum NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.19 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
esophagus NN O O
and NN O O
duodenum NN O O
combined NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.76 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
esophagus NN O O
before NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.31 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.43 NN O O
) NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
relaxation NN O O
with NN O O
butylscopolamine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Similar NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duodenum NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
thermal NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
esophagus NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
duodenum NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.17 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
electrical NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
esophagus NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.57 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
duodenum NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.52 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
somatic NN O I-OUT
referred NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
esophagus NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
duodenum NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.51 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
induced NN O O
somatic NN O I-OUT
referred NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
No NN O O
evidence NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
GES-induced NN O I-INT
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
visceral NN O O
sensory NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
excitability NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
GES NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
proven NN O O
to NN O O
modulate NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
necessitating NN O O
further NN O O
human NN O O
experiments NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
unambiguously NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
central NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
GES NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18626761)

Engagement NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
electronic NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
media NN O I-INT
among NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
engagement NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
electronic NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
media NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
animated NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
self NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
familiar NN O I-INT
person NN O I-INT
engaged NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
immersive NN O I-INT
virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
immersion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
self NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
VR NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-two NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
varying NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
expressive NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
ability NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Gaze NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vocalization NN O I-OUT
served NN O O
as NN O O
dependent NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
engagement NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
reveal NN O O
differential NN O O
responding NN O O
across NN O O
ESM NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
some NN O O
variation NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
engagement NN O O
metric NN O O
employed NN O O
. NN O O

Preferences NN O O
for NN O O
seeing NN O I-OUT
themselves NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
screen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
viewing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
VR NN O I-OUT
scenarios NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
emerged NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
yield NN O O
definitive NN O O
data NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
engagement NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
ESM NN O I-INT
alternatives NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
does NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
foundation NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
guidance NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
participant NN O O
profiles NN O O
, NN O O
stimulus NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
data NN O O
coding NN O O
challenges NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18629569)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
and NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
In NN O O
242 NN O I-PAR
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
seniors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
or NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
first NN O O
falls NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
20 NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
and NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
on NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falling NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
controversially NN O O
. NN O O

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
using NN O O
falls NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
on NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
242 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
advertisements NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mailing NN O I-PAR
lists NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
OH NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
nmol/l NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Individuals NN O O
received NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blinded NN O O
fashion NN O O
either NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
or NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
800 NN O O
IU NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
per NN O O
day NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
treatment-free NN O O
but NN O O
still NN O O
blinded NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Falls NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
documented NN O O
using NN O O
diaries NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
place NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Bad NN O I-PAR
Pyrmont NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
latitude NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Graz NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Austria NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
latitude NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
calcium NN O O
mono NN O O
, NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
calcium NN O O
plus NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.73 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.54-0.96 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.61 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.34-0.76 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Concerning NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
sway NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
perform NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
TUG NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Combined NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
proved NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
calcium NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improving NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18670875)

Venlafaxine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
treatment-induced NN O I-PAR
menopause NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
frequent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-OUT
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
compared NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HF NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
wash-out NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
vice NN O O
versa NN O O
. NN O O

HF NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexuality NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
started NN O O
with NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Premature NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
for NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
14/59 NN O O
during NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
5/53 NN O O
during NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.038 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Venlafaxine NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
more NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Venlafaxine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
are NN O O
equally NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
moderately NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
drug NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
, NN O O
occurring NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
with NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18678578)

Local NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
adenoassociated NN O I-INT
vector NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
tumour NN O I-INT
necrosis NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
gene NN O I-INT
in NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
arthritis NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intra-articular NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
rAAV2-TNFR NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Fc NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
adenoassociated NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
serotype NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
vector NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
cDNA NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
tumour NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor-immunoglobulin NN O O
Fc NN O O
fusion NN O O
gene NN O O
( NN O O
tgAAC94 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ankylosing NN O I-PAR
spondylitis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
tumour NN O I-PAR
necrosis NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
alpha NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TNFalpha NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
inhibitors NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
swelling NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intra-articular NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
rAAV2-TNFR NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Fc NN O I-INT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
DNase NN O O
resistant NN O O
particles NN O O
per NN O O
ml NN O O
joint NN O O
volume NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
knee NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ankle NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
through NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
objective NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
injected NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
tenderness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
each NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
four-point NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Intra-articular NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
rAAV2-TNFR NN O O
: NN O O
Fc NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
major NN O O
safety NN O O
issues NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
event NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
knee NN O O
pruritus NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
probably NN O O
related NN O O
. NN O O

Synovial NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
TNFR NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
Fc NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
detected NN O O
( NN O O
nor NN O O
expected NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
two-point NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
2/11 NN O O
and NN O O
2/4 NN O O
subjects NN O O
injected NN O O
with NN O O
rAAV2-TNFR NN O O
: NN O O
Fc NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intra-articular NN O O
rAAV2-TNFR NN O O
: NN O O
Fc NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
without NN O O
concurrent NN O O
systemic NN O O
TNFalpha NN O O
antagonist NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
thus NN O O
feasible NN O O
to NN O O
proceed NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
local NN O O
TNFR NN O O
: NN O O
Fc NN O O
gene NN O O
transfer NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modality NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18678836)

Concurrent NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
operable NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
axillary NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
North NN O O
American NN O O
Breast NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
Trial NN O O
E NN O O
2197 NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Doxorubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
active NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
metastatic NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
AT NN O O
improved NN O O
disease-free NN O O
survival NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
AC NN O O
in NN O O
operable NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
there NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
node-negative NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
AC NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
AT NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
hormone NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
estrogen NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ER NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
progesterone NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-positive NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
2,882 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
79.5 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
DFS NN O O
; NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
AC NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
AT NN O O
was NN O O
1.02 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
DFS NN O O
, NN O O
0.86 NN O O
to NN O O
1.22 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.78 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
prespecified NN O O
stratification NN O O
factors NN O O
by NN O O
ER NN O O
and NN O O
PR NN O O
expression NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
trends NN O O
toward NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
AT NN O O
in NN O O
ER/PR-negative NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
with NN O O
AT NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
AT NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
DFS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18684258)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
low-tilt NN O O
biphasic NN O O
waveform NN O O
for NN O O
transvenous NN O O
cardioversion NN O O
of NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
improved NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
capacitor-based NN O O
waveforms NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
optimal NN O O
waveform NN O O
tilt NN O O
for NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
modern NN O O
defibrillators NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cardioversion NN O O
of NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
( NN O O
AF NN O O
) NN O O
employ NN O O
high-tilt NN O O
, NN O O
capacitor-based NN O O
biphasic NN O O
waveforms NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
have NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
low-tilt NN O I-INT
biphasic NN O I-INT
waveform NN O I-INT
for NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
low-tilt NN O I-INT
waveform NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
waveform NN O I-INT
of NN O O
equivalent NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
voltage NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
induced NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
routine NN O I-PAR
electrophysiology NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EPS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
low-tilt NN O I-INT
waveform NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
waveform NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Defibrillation NN O O
electrodes NN O O
were NN O O
positioned NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
atrial NN O O
appendage NN O O
and NN O O
distal NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
. NN O O

Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
peak NN O O
voltage NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
stepwise NN O O
progression NN O O
from NN O O
50 NN O O
V NN O O
to NN O O
300V NN O O
. NN O O

Shock NN O O
success NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
return NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
> NN O O
/=30 NN O O
seconds NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
low-tilt NN O I-INT
waveform NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
successful NN O O
termination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
voltage NN O O
of NN O O
223 NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
8.2 NN O O
J NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
270 NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
J NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
waveform NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
for NN O O
voltage NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
ns NN O O
for NN O O
energy NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
induced NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
voltage NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
low-tilt NN O O
waveform NN O O
was NN O O
91V NN O O
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
J NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
waveform NN O O
was NN O O
158 NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
2.0 NN O O
J NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
for NN O O
voltage NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
ns NN O O
for NN O O
energy NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
waveform NN O O
was NN O O
much NN O O
more NN O O
successful NN O O
at NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
voltages NN O O
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
V NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
waveform NN O O
( NN O O
Novel NN O O
: NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
Conventional NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
low-tilt NN O I-INT
biphasic NN O I-INT
waveform NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
successful NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
internal NN O O
cardioversion NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
persistent NN O O
and NN O O
induced NN O O
AF NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
leading NN O O
edge NN O O
voltage NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18686184)

Smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
smokeless NN O I-INT
tobacco NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Smokeless NN O I-INT
tobacco NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
for NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
smokeless NN O I-INT
tobacco NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
for NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
smokeless NN O I-INT
tobacco NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
263 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
smoked NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
cigarettes/day NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
pack-years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Smokeless NN O I-INT
tobacco NN O I-INT
was NN O O
provided NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
eight NN O O
group NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
nurses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O O
group NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
smokeless NN O O
tobacco NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Point-prevalence NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
36.4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
20.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
2.52 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
continuous NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
were NN O O
31.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
19.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.94 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.023 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
6-month NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
23.1 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
20.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.31 NN O O
, NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Smokeless NN O I-INT
tobacco NN O I-INT
was NN O O
relatively NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
15 NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
11.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
stopped NN O O
use NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
17.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
using NN O O
smokeless NN O O
tobacco NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
smokeless NN O I-OUT
tobacco NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18702754)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
UNLABELLED NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIM NN O O
OF NN O O
INVESTIGATION NN O O
: NN O O
Intramuscular NN O O
( NN O O
IM NN O O
) NN O O
administration NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safer NN O O
than NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
opioids NN O I-INT
on NN O O
wards NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
potency NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O O
and NN O O
IM NN O O
administration NN O O
is NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
IM NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
for NN O O
post-operative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post-operative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
IM NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
specified NN O O
pain NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
double NN O O
blinded NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
11-point NN O I-OUT
numeric NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
CO2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5-point NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
IV NN O O
group NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
p NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
CO2 NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
IM NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.8 NN O O
, NN O O
5.4 NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.0 NN O O
and NN O O
5.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.1 NN O O
kPa NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IV NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
IM NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
IV NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
IM NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IV NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
slightly NN O O
more NN O O
sedated NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
IM NN O O
group NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
morphine NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
bolus NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O O
morphine NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
provides NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
given NN O O
IM NN O O
. NN O O

IV NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
even NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
as NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
IV NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
certain NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
at NN O O
its NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
ward NN O O
needs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
explored NN O O
in NN O O
adequately NN O O
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18721764)

Long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
I/II NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
palifermin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GVHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
donor NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
previously NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
palifermin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
recombinant NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
keratinocyte NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dosed NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
240 NN O I-PAR
microg/kg NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
720 NN O I-PAR
microg/kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
palifermin NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
mucositis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
engraftment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
graft-versus-host NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GVHD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
palifermin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mucosa NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
pleotrophic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
rapid NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
reconstitution NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
experimental NN O O
transplant NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
we NN O O
could NN O O
detect NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
palifermin-treated NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
cohorts NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
CMV NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
invasive NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
GVHD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
cohorts NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
palifermin NN O I-INT
appear NN O O
primarily NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
ameliorating NN O O
mucotoxicity NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
HCT NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18726150)

Faux NN O I-INT
pas NN O I-INT
detection NN O I-INT
and NN O O
intentional NN O O
action NN O O
in NN O O
Asperger NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
replication NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
French NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
mind NN O O
reading NN O O
abilities NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
faux NN O I-INT
pas NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
advanced NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
theory NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mind NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Baron-Cohen NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
1999 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Journal NN O O
of NN O O
Autism NN O O
and NN O O
Developmental NN O O
Disorders NN O O
, NN O O
29 NN O O
, NN O O
407-418 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
faux NN O I-INT
pas NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
particular NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
non-intentional NN O O
action NN O O
reflecting NN O O
an NN O O
involuntary NN O O
socially NN O O
inappropriate NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
over-detected NN O I-PAR
faux NN O I-OUT
pas NN O I-OUT
stories NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O I-OUT
correct NN O I-OUT
justifications NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
speaker NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mistaken NN O I-OUT
belief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
they NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
responsive NN O O
to NN O O
social NN O O
rule NN O O
violations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
impaired NN O O
theory-of-mind NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
develop NN O O
compensatory NN O O
cognitive NN O O
strategies NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
overlearned NN O O
abstract NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
normative NN O O
rules NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18752063)

Positive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-regulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
report NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-regulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
RUPP NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Network NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
four-week NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
increasing NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
given NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
each NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

Observational NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-regulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
affective NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
each NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
initiations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
bids NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-regulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
regulated NN O I-OUT
affective NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
go NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
recent NN O O
literature NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18783079)

[ NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
CARESS-in-AMI NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18783414)

Cemented NN O I-INT
CeraOne NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
porcelain NN O I-INT
fused NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
TiAdapt NN O I-INT
abutment NN O I-INT
single-implant NN O I-INT
crown NN O I-INT
restorations NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
10-year NN O O
comparative NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Long-term NN O O
data NN O O
comparing NN O O
cemented NN O I-INT
and NN O O
noncemented NN O I-INT
single-implant NN O I-INT
restorations NN O I-INT
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
single-implant NN O I-INT
crown NN O I-INT
restorations NN O I-INT
made NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
directly NN O O
baked NN O I-INT
porcelain NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
custom-made NN O I-INT
TiAdapt NN O I-INT
titanium NN O I-INT
abutments NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Nobel NN O O
Biocare NN O O
AB NN O O
, NN O O
G?teborg NN O O
, NN O O
Sweden NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
crowns NN O I-INT
onto NN O I-INT
CeraOne NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Nobel NN O I-INT
Biocare NN O I-INT
AB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
abutments NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
after NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O I-PAR
Altogether NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
provided NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
turned NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
Br?nemark NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Nobel NN O I-INT
Biocare NN O I-INT
AB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-PAR
partially NN O I-PAR
edentulous NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
jaw NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
By NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
provided NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
23 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
crowns NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thereafter NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
None NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
were NN O I-OUT
found NN O I-OUT
loose NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Few NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.26 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
0.64 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
tightening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
crowns NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
head NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
placed NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
6.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
2.24 NN O O
) NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
cement/enamel NN O O
junction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adjacent NN O O
teeth NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
2.5-10.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Implants NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
mechanical NN O O
and/or NN O O
mucosal NN O O
problems NN O O
or NN O O
placed NN O O
more NN O O
apically NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
adjacent NN O O
teeth NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
present NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O O
problems NN O O
or NN O O
placed NN O O
more NN O O
coronally NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
no NN O O
obvious NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
single-implant NN O I-INT
restorations NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Occasionally NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O I-INT
restorations NN O I-INT
presented NN O I-INT
loose NN O I-OUT
abutment NN O I-OUT
screws NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
fistulas NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
implies NN O O
a NN O O
certain NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
where NN O O
a NN O O
one-piece NN O I-INT
single-implant NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
allows NN O I-INT
both NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
clinical NN O O
procedure NN O O
at NN O O
placement NN O O
without NN O O
cementation NN O O
problems NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
easy NN O O
and NN O O
simple NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
installed NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
crowns NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
long-term NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18787937)

Extinction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
over-selected NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
causes NN O O
emergence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
under-selected NN O I-OUT
cues NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
higher-functioning NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
experiments NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
over-selectivity NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
product NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
post-acquisition NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
an NN O O
attention NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
experiments NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autistic NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trial-and-error NN O I-INT
discrimination NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
using NN O O
two NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
two-element NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
and NN O O
over-selected NN O I-INT
in NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
behavioral NN O O
control NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
previously NN O O
over-selected NN O I-OUT
stimulus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
extinguished NN O O
, NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
previously NN O O
under-selected NN O O
cue NN O O
emerged NN O O
without NN O O
direct NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
higher-functioning NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
over-selectivity NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
simply NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stimuli NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
also NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
extinction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
over-selected NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
fruitful NN O O
line NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
individuals NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18802161)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
depression NN O I-INT
among NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Alleviating NN O I-INT
Depression NN O I-INT
Among NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
With NN O I-INT
Cancer NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ADAPt-C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
for NN O O
major NN O O
depression NN O O
or NN O O
dysthymia NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Study NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
472 NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dysthymia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
242 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
enhanced NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
EUC NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
230 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
access NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
depression NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
psychiatrist NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
offered NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintenance/relapse NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
psychiatrist NN O O
prescribed NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
preferring NN O O
or NN O O
assessed NN O O
to NN O O
require NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Patient NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire-9 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PHQ-9 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
EUC NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
1.98 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.16 NN O O
to NN O O
3.38 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
5-point NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
PHQ-9 NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
72.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
59.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
EUC NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.99 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.14 NN O O
to NN O O
3.50 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
experienced NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
72.3 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
10.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
EUC NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
social/family NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
2.7 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.22 NN O O
to NN O O
4.17 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
1.29 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.26 NN O O
to NN O O
2.22 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
1.34 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.08 NN O O
to NN O O
2.59 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
2.79 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.49 NN O O
to NN O O
5.1 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
ADAPt-C NN O I-INT
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
pain NN O O
levels NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
EUC NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
sector NN O I-PAR
oncology NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18836092)

A NN O O
multifactorial NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
management NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
scheduled NN O I-PAR
vaccination NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
study NN O O
realized NN O O
by NN O O
family NN O O
practitioners NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
239 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
multiplicity NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine NN O O
injections NN O O
during NN O O
childhood NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
iterative NN O O
painful NN O O
and NN O O
stressful NN O O
experiences NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
in NN O O
turn NN O O
to NN O O
anticipated NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
possibly NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
true NN O O
needle NN O O
phobia NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
evaluating NN O O
a NN O O
multifactorial NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
management NN O O
combining NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
and NN O O
non-pharmacological NN O O
approaches NN O O
during NN O O
vaccination NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
4- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
239 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
pseudo-randomization NN O O
, NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
132 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
multifactorial NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
107 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
associating NN O I-INT
preliminary NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
anesthesic NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
preferential NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
specified NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
doctor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
parental NN O I-INT
accompaniment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
distraction NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
soap NN O I-INT
bubbles NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

child NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
self-report NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
named NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
multifactorial NN O O
strategy NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
self-reported NN O O
VAS NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
another NN O O
self-report NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
revised NN O O
: NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
hetero-evaluations NN O O
by NN O O
GPs NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Hospital NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Eastern NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0007 NN O O
; NN O O
GPs NN O O
VAS NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
multifactorial NN O O
method NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreases NN O O
vaccination NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
4- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
strategy NN O O
could NN O O
make NN O O
vaccines NN O O
more NN O O
acceptable NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
child-doctor NN O O
relationships NN O O
and NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
child NN O O
fear NN O O
about NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1884668)

Levels NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
heroin NN O I-PAR
addicts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O O
physical NN O O
dependence NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O I-PAR
heroin NN O I-PAR
addicts NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
ascertained NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
opioid NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
challenge NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
naloxone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prior NN O O
to NN O O
challenge NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
manifested NN O O
some NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
few NN O O
objective NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
score NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
rating NN O O
scales NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
opioid NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
naloxone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
rating NN O O
scales NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
due NN O O
primarily NN O O
to NN O O
increases NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
minority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-one NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
manifest NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
manifest NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
naloxone NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
heroin NN O O
addicts NN O O
are NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
opioids NN O O
regularly NN O O
while NN O O
maintaining NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
dependence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1889248)

Bacterial NN O I-INT
ribosomal NN O I-INT
immunostimulants NN O I-INT
prime NN O O
alveolar NN O O
macrophages NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
interleukin NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O

Alveolar NN O O
macrophages NN O O
( NN O O
AMs NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
respiratory NN O O
immune NN O O
defenses NN O O
, NN O O
partially NN O O
by NN O O
synthesizing NN O O
and NN O O
releasing NN O O
interleukin NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
D53 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Ribomunyl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
bacterial NN O I-INT
ribosomal NN O I-INT
immunostimulant NN O I-INT
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
recognized NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
efficient NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
vitro NN O O
, NN O O
D53 NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
mouse NN O O
spleen NN O O
adherent NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
thymocyte NN O O
proliferative NN O O
response NN O O
assay NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
AMs NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
D53 NN O I-INT
immunostimulant NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twelve NN O I-PAR
nonsmoking NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
took NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo NN O O
control NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
bronchoalveolar NN O O
lavage NN O O
( NN O O
BAL NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
unstimulated NN O O
and NN O O
lipopolysaccharide NN O O
( NN O O
LPS NN O O
) NN O O
stimulated NN O O
AM NN O O
. NN O O

Then NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
D53 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
its NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injection NN O O
routes NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
BAL NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
and NN O O
AM NN O I-OUT
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
again NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

IL-1 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
D53-treated NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
either NN O O
when NN O O
AMs NN O O
were NN O O
unstimulated NN O O
or NN O O
were NN O O
stimulated NN O O
with NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
LPS NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
maximal NN O O
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
D53-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
low NN O O
LPS NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
: NN O O
1,238 NN O O
+/- NN O O
287 NN O O
U/10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
AM NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
577 NN O O
+/- NN O O
113 NN O O
U/10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
AM NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
W NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
production NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
LPS NN O O
, NN O O
758 NN O O
+/- NN O O
175 NN O O
U/10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
AM NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
U NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
D53-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O I-OUT
LPS NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
LPS NN O O
concentration NN O O
that NN O O
induced NN O O
maximal NN O O
IL-1 NN O O
production NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
11 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
W NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
D53 NN O I-INT
immunostimulant NN O I-INT
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
primes NN O O
AM NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
LPS NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
partially NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
D53 NN O I-INT
immunostimulant NN O I-INT
against NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18953651)

Is NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
endocrine NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
endocrine-responsive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
node-positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
International NN O O
Breast NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
Trials NN O O
VII NN O O
and NN O O
12-93 NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
chemoendocrine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
endocrine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
endocrine NN O I-PAR
responsive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O O
Breast NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
IBCSG NN O O
) NN O O
Trials NN O O
VII NN O O
and NN O O
12-93 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
node-positive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
estrogen NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ER NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-positive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ER-negative NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
endocrine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
chemoendocrine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
overall NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
893 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endocrine-responsive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
categories NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ER NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nodal NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STEPP NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
13 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Adding NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

STEPP NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
little NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
tumors NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ER NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cohort NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
positive NN O O
node NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improves NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endocrine-responsive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
substantially NN O O
attenuated NN O O
if NN O O
ER NN O O
levels NN O O
are NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18982929)

Can NN O O
HMG NN O I-INT
Co-A NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
statins NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
slow NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
age-related NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
The NN O O
age-related NN O O
maculopathy NN O O
statin NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
ARMSS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Age-related NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AMD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Western NN O O
world NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
cholesterol-lowering NN O O
medications NN O O
, NN O O
HMG NN O I-INT
Co-A NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
statins NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
AMD NN O O
or NN O O
of NN O O
delaying NN O O
its NN O O
progression NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
fully NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
3-year NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
AMD NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
outlines NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Age-Related NN O O
Maculopathy NN O O
Statin NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
ARMSS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
methodology NN O O
involved NN O O
. NN O O

Standardized NN O O
clinical NN O O
grading NN O O
of NN O O
macular NN O O
photographs NN O O
and NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
serial NN O O
macular NN O O
digital NN O O
photographs NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O O
grading NN O O
scheme NN O O
, NN O O
form NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
study NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
macular NN O O
function NN O O
is NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
visit NN O O
with NN O O
detailed NN O O
psychophysical NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
rod NN O O
and NN O O
cone NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Information NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
assist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
HMG NN O I-INT
Co-A NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
statins NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
AMD NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18989547)

Comparison NN O O
between NN O O
intermittent NN O I-INT
mandatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
synchronized NN O I-INT
intermittent NN O I-INT
mandatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
with NN O O
pressure NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
intermittent NN O I-INT
mandatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IMV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
synchronized NN O I-INT
intermittent NN O I-INT
mandatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SIMV+PS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
weaning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
pediatric NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
PICU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
PICU NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
put NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
by NN O O
drawing NN O O
lots NN O O
: NN O O
IMV NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
IMVG NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
SIMV+PS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
SIMVG NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
tracheotomy NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
on NN O O
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
admission NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
weaning NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
indication NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
MV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PRISM NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Comfort NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sedatives NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
MV NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.120 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
weaning NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-INT
IMVG NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
1-6 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
SIMVG NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
1-6 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.262 NN O O
] NN O O
or NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-INT
IMVG NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
8 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
2-22 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
SIMVG NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
3-20 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.113 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Among NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
here NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
IMV NN O I-INT
and NN O O
SIMV+PS NN O I-INT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
on NN O O
MV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
weaning NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PICU NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
ClinicalTrials.govID NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00549809 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19001830)

Phosphate NN O I-INT
binder NN O I-INT
impact NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
calcification NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
BRiC NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Calcium-containing NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
binders NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
calcification NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sevelamer NN O I-INT
on NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
calcification NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CAC NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
histology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
each NN O O
phosphate NN O I-INT
binder NN O I-INT
and NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
multislice NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
tomographies NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
biopsies NN O I-INT
at NN O O
entry NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
concluded NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
On NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sevelamer NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
intact NN O I-OUT
parathyroid NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
498 NN O O
+/- NN O O
352 NN O O
vs. NN O O
326 NN O O
+/- NN O O
236 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
vs. NN O O
28 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
U/l NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
deoxypyridinoline NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
135 NN O O
+/- NN O O
107 NN O O
vs. NN O O
89 NN O O
+/- NN O O
71 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
74 NN O O
+/- NN O O
21 NN O O
vs. NN O O
91 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Phosphorus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.47 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.27 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.07 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.23 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.08 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.68 NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CAC NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
35 NN O O
vs. NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.94 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sevelamer NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
turnover NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
eroded NN O O
surface NN O O
, NN O O
ES/BS NN O O
= NN O O
9.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
13.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
turnover NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
BFR/BS NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.016 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.062 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.078 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
for NN O O
calcium NN O O
and NN O O
0.017 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.016 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.071 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.084 NN O O
microm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
/microm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/day NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
for NN O O
sevelamer NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
CAC NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
sevelamer NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19011453)

Comparison NN O O
between NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
valproate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
mania NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19022794)

Parecoxib NN O I-INT
for NN O O
analgesia NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
craniotomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
craniotomy NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
under-treated NN O O
. NN O O

Opiates NN O O
carry NN O O
distinct NN O O
disadvantages NN O O
. NN O O

Non-steroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drugs NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
anti-platelet NN O O
action NN O O
and NN O O
carry NN O O
a NN O O
bleeding NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Cyclo-oxygenase NN O O
2 NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
parecoxib NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
bleeding NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
welcome NN O O
analgesics NN O O
if NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
given NN O O
at NN O O
dural NN O O
closure NN O O
in NN O O
82 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
craniotomies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Remifentanil NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
intraoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
requirement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
post-anaesthetic NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
ward NN O O
, NN O O
i.m NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
as NN O O
required NN O O
and NN O O
regular NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
was NN O O
prescribed NN O O
. NN O O

Morphine NN O I-INT
use NN O O
and NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Parecoxib NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
morphine NN O O
use NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
only NN O O
minimal NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirements NN O O
where NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
no NN O O
opioids NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
required NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

morphine NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
only NN O O
limited NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
parecoxib NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
analgesic NN O O
after NN O O
craniotomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19047882)

Acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Electronic NN O I-INT
Self-Report NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eliciting NN O O
symptom NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
information NN O O
from NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O O
and NN O O
nursing NN O O
care NN O O
processes NN O O
. NN O O

Traditionally NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
information NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
collected NN O O
with NN O O
paper NN O O
and NN O O
pencil NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
presents NN O O
several NN O O
barriers NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
delays NN O O
in NN O O
receiving NN O O
information NN O O
, NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
integrating NN O O
responses NN O O
with NN O O
electronic NN O O
records NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
manually NN O O
score NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
for NN O O
measurement NN O O
purposes NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
solution NN O O
that NN O O
addresses NN O O
many NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
barriers NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
adoption NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
symptom NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quality-of-life NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
research NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
asking NN O O
symptom NN O O
and NN O O
quality-of-life NN O O
questions NN O O
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Electronic NN O I-INT
Self NN O I-INT
Report NN O I-INT
Assessment-Cancer NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
wireless NN O I-INT
laptops NN O I-INT
equipped NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
touch-screen NN O I-INT
format NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Acceptability NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
explored NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
whether NN O O
any NN O O
differences NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
demographics NN O O
and NN O O
symptom NN O O
and NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
evaluation NN O O
used NN O O
descriptive NN O O
and NN O O
univariate NN O O
statistics NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
342 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
ESRA-C NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ESRA-C NN O I-INT
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Seattle NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Alliance NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
consortium NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Washington NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Fred NN O I-PAR
Hutchinson NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Regional NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Seattle NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
WA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
sample NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
342 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
survey NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O O
oncology NN O O
represented NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
recruitment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
45.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
transplant NN O O
( NN O O
34.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
radiation NN O O
oncology NN O O
( NN O O
20.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
finding NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
able NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
ESRA-C NN O I-OUT
quickly NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
without NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
real-world NN O O
clinical NN O O
setting NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
overall NN O O
quite NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ESRA-C NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
demographics NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
measures NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
distress NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
analysis NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
ESRA-C NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
collecting NN O I-INT
symptom NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quality NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
life NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
is NN O O
easy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
acceptable NN O O
across NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
user NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
intend NN O O
to NN O O
build NN O O
on NN O O
our NN O O
work NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
survey NN O O
platform NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
modalities NN O O
while NN O O
ensuring NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
preferences NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1904908)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bulimia NN O I-OUT
nervosa NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-one NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
bulimic NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
being NN O O
separated NN O O
into NN O O
depressed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nondepressed NN O I-PAR
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
bulimic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Lithium NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dosage NN O O
yielding NN O O
relatively NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
psychopathologies NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
bulimic NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19066101)

Preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
minimally-invasive NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
rtPA NN O I-INT
for NN O O
intracerebral NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
evacuation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
MISTIE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
ischemic NN O O
stroke NN O O
, NN O O
intracerebral NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
( NN O O
ICH NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
easily NN O O
and NN O O
rapidly NN O O
identified NN O O
, NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
produces NN O I-PAR
relatively NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
tissues NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
suggesting NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
interventional NN O I-PAR
amelioration NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
possible NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Investigations NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
decade NN O O
established NN O O
that NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
ICH-mediated NN O O
brain NN O O
injury NN O O
relates NN O O
directly NN O O
to NN O O
blood NN O O
clot NN O O
volume NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
brain NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
minimally-invasive NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
plasminogen NN O I-INT
activator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rtPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
MISTIE NN O O
investigators NN O O
explored NN O O
aggressive NN O O
avenues NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
ICH NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
rtPA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
ICH NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
medically NN O I-PAR
managed NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
protocols NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
surgery NN O O
underwent NN O O
stereotactic NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clot NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
rtPA NN O I-INT
were NN O O
then NN O O
given NN O O
through NN O O
hematoma NN O O
catheter NN O O
every NN O O
8 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
a NN O O
clot-reduction NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
each NN O O
injection NN O O
the NN O O
system NN O O
was NN O O
flushed NN O O
with NN O O
sterile NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
closed NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
opening NN O O
to NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
drainage NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Average NN O I-OUT
aspiration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clots NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
surgery NN O O
plus NN O O
rtPA NN O O
was NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O O
initial NN O O
clot NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
aspiration NN O O
plus NN O O
rtPA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
clot NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Recorded NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
safety NN O O
limits NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
30-day NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
re-bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
bacterial NN O I-OUT
ventriculitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
medical NN O O
management NN O O
showed NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
clot NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
time NN O O
window NN O O
. NN O O

Preliminary NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
clot NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
greatly NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
catheter NN O O
placement NN O O
. NN O O

Location NN O O
of NN O O
ICH NN O O
also NN O O
affects NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
aggressive NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ICH NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
tentative NN O O
indication NN O O
that NN O O
minimally-invasive NN O O
surgery NN O O
plus NN O O
rtPA NN O O
shows NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
clot NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
traditional NN O O
medical NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19081412)

Three-year NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
after NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
stenting NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
totally NN O I-PAR
occluded NN O I-PAR
native NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
arteries NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
bare-metal NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sirolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
occlusions NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
Primary NN O O
Stenting NN O O
of NN O O
Totally NN O O
Occluded NN O O
Native NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Arteries NN O O
[ NN O O
PRISON NN O O
] NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
3-year NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O I-PAR
Stenting NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Totally NN O I-PAR
Occluded NN O I-PAR
Native NN O I-PAR
Coronary NN O I-PAR
Arteries NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
totally NN O I-PAR
occluded NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
arteries NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
sirolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
Cypher NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SESs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Cordis NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
Johnson NN O O
& NN O O
Joshson NN O O
Company NN O O
, NN O O
Miami NN O O
Lakes NN O O
, NN O O
FL NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
bare-metal NN O I-INT
BxVelocity NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BMSs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Cordis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
followed NN O O
clinically NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
infrequent NN O O
additional NN O O
clinical NN O O
events NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
distributed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
SES NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
BMS NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SES NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BMS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
target NN O O
vessel NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SES NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BMS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SES NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BMS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Academic NN O O
Research NN O O
Consortium NN O O
criteria NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
implantation NN O O
of NN O O
SESs NN O I-INT
for NN O O
total NN O O
coronary NN O O
occlusions NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
adverse NN O O
clinical NN O O
events NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
BMSs NN O I-INT
without NN O O
the NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
disproportionate NN O O
late NN O O
restenosis NN O O
or NN O O
late NN O O
stent NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19103729)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
adenovirus-p53 NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
advanced NN O I-OUT
nasopharyngeal NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
centrally NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
6-year NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
adenovirus-p53 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
intratumorally NN O O
injected NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Concurrent NN O O
RT NN O O
( NN O O
70 NN O O
Gy NN O O
in NN O O
35 NN O O
fractions NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
nasopharyngeal NN O O
tumor NN O O
and NN O O
neck NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
and NN O O
tumors NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
rAd-p53-specific NN O I-OUT
p53 NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
postinjection NN O O
of NN O O
rAd-p53 NN O O
biopsies NN O O
from NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
94.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Upregulation NN O O
of NN O O
p21/WAF1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Bax NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
downregulation NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
postinjection NN O O
tumor NN O O
biopsy NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
2.73 NN O O
times NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
24.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Six-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
locoregional NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
25.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
irradiation NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
5-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
7.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.34 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
11.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.21 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
dose-limiting NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biologically NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
rAd-p53 NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
radiotherapeutic NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19109542)

Modified NN O I-INT
constraint-induced NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
mental NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
thinking NN O O
through NN O O
better NN O O
motor NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Modified NN O I-INT
constraint-induced NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mCIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
outpatient NN O O
therapy NN O O
encouraging NN O O
repetitive NN O O
, NN O O
task-specific NN O O
practice NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

mCIT NN O I-INT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
stages NN O O
poststroke NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
therapy NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mental NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
mCIT NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
mCIT NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
using NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
61.4+/-3.02 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
since NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
28.5 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
exhibiting NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-PAR
deficits NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
administered NN O O
mCIT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
structured NN O O
therapy NN O O
emphasizing NN O O
affected NN O O
arm NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O O
activities NN O O
3 NN O O
days/week NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
less NN O O
affected NN O O
arm NN O O
restraint NN O O
5 NN O O
days/week NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
components NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mCIT+mental NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
experimental NN O O
condition NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
30-minute NN O O
mental NN O O
practice NN O O
sessions NN O O
provided NN O O
directly NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
mental NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
required NN O O
daily NN O O
cognitive NN O O
rehearsal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
practiced NN O O
during NN O O
mCIT NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
pre-existing NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
demographic NN O O
variable NN O O
or NN O O
movement NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
subjects NN O O
exhibited NN O O
marked NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
affected NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
limitation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mCIT+mental NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
group NN O O
exhibited NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
movement NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
: NN O O
Action NN O O
Research NN O O
Arm NN O O
Test NN O O
, NN O O
+15.4-point NN O O
change NN O O
versus NN O O
+8.4-point NN O O
change NN O O
for NN O O
mCIT NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
Fugl-Meyer NN O O
, NN O O
+7.8-point NN O O
change NN O O
versus NN O O
+4.1-point NN O O
change NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
mCIT NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
mCIT NN O I-INT
remains NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
motor NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
directly NN O O
after NN O O
mCIT NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1911498)

Intravenous NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
shivering-like NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
alter NN O I-OUT
thermoregulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
that NN O O
systemic NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
shivering-like NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
seen NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
epidural NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
causing NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
disinhibition NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O O
reflexes NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
activates NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
alters NN O I-OUT
thermoregulatory NN O I-OUT
mechanisms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
approximate NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
during NN O O
epidural NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Five NN O O
volunteers NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
warm NN O O
room NN O O
( NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
nonthermoregulatory NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
volunteers NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cold NN O O
room NN O O
( NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
thermoregulation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Central NN O I-OUT
temperatures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
vasoconstriction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clonus NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
intravenous NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
tremor NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
these NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19117033)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hypocalcemia NN O O
with NN O O
routine NN O O
oral NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
papillary NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
thyroidectomy NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
dissection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Routine NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
hypocalcemic NN O O
crisis NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
thyroidectomy NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
dissection NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CND NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
authors NN O O
therefore NN O O
prospectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
routine NN O O
oral NN O O
calcium NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
supplementation NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
hypocalcemia NN O O
after NN O O
total NN O O
thyroidectomy NN O O
and NN O O
CND NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Of NN O O
197 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
papillary NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
49 NN O O
underwent NN O O
total NN O O
thyroidectomy NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
148 NN O O
underwent NN O O
total NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
CND NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
latter NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
g/day NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
n=49 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
n=49 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
n=50 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hypocalcemic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parathyroid NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PTH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
( NN O O
26.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.015 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
( NN O O
44.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
14.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.015 NN O O
) NN O O
hypocalcemia NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
without NN O O
CND NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
hypocalcemia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
Groups NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
2.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
24.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
recovered NN O O
earliest NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
A. NN O O
Hypercalcemia NN O O
and NN O O
PTH NN O O
inhibition NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
gs NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
total NN O O
thyroidectomy NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
CND NN O O
significantly NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hypocalcemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
prevented NN O O
by NN O O
routine NN O O
postoperative NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
calcium NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19135235)

Probiotics NN O I-INT
prevent NN O O
IgE-associated NN O O
allergy NN O O
until NN O O
age NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
cesarean-delivered NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
cohort NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Less NN O O
microbial NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
childhood NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
allergic NN O O
disease NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Allergic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
fecal NN O O
microflora NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
lactobacilli NN O O
and NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
. NN O O

Beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
allergy NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
come NN O O
through NN O O
probiotic NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
probiotic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prebiotic NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
allergies NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
we NN O O
randomized NN O O
1223 NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
allergy NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
probiotic NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
lactobacilli NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bifidobacteria NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propionibacteria NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
it NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
until NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Infants NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
prebiotic NN O I-INT
galacto-oligosaccharide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O I-OUT
diseases NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
eczema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
allergy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IgE NN O I-OUT
sensitization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
1018 NN O I-PAR
intent-to-treat NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
891 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
88 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
attended NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
5-year NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Frequencies NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IgE-associated NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sensitization NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
probiotic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
: NN O O
52.6 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
54.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
29.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
26.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
41.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
appeared NN O O
in NN O O
frequencies NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eczema NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
39.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
43.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
atopic NN O I-OUT
eczema NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
25.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
19.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
asthma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
14.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
IgE-associated NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
cesarean-delivered NN O O
children NN O O
receiving NN O O
probiotics NN O I-INT
( NN O O
24.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
40.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.47 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.23 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
0.96 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.035 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
No NN O O
allergy-preventive NN O O
effect NN O O
that NN O O
extended NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
perinatal NN O O
supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
probiotic NN O I-INT
bacteria NN O I-INT
to NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
conferred NN O O
protection NN O O
only NN O O
to NN O O
cesarean-delivered NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19148734)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Controversy NN O O
exists NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
and NN O O
possible NN O O
causal NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IGOH NN O I-INT
140 NN O O
, NN O O
420 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
840 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
utilized NN O O
with NN O O
125 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
2-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
GI NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Endpoint NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
across NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
validated NN O O
in NN O O
irritable NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
IGOH NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
conducting NN O O
rigorous NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
casts NN O O
doubt NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
GI NN O O
mechanism NN O O
presumed NN O O
to NN O O
exert NN O O
etiological NN O O
and/or NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19155827)

Do NN O O
catheter NN O I-INT
washouts NN O I-INT
extend NN O O
patency NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
indwelling NN O I-OUT
urethral NN O O
catheters NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
acidic NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
Blockage NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
indwelling NN O O
catheters NN O O
with NN O O
mineral NN O O
deposit NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O O
management NN O O
issue NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
evidence NN O O
on NN O O
optimal NN O O
management NN O O
is NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
catheter NN O I-INT
washouts NN O I-INT
prevent NN O O
or NN O O
reduce NN O O
catheter NN O I-OUT
blockage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
multisite NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING NN O O
Adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
indwelling NN O I-PAR
catheters NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
changing NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
supportive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
continuing NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
commercially NN O I-INT
available NN O I-INT
acidic NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Contisol NN O I-INT
Maelor NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
Ltd NN O O
, NN O O
Wrexham NN O O
, NN O O
UK NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
catheter NN O O
was NN O O
changed NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
checks NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
commercial NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
weekly NN O O
washout NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O O
solution NN O O
. NN O O

Endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
completion NN O O
data NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
catheter NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
8-week NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UTI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
catheter NN O O
life NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
extended NN O O
by NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
commercial NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
blind NN O O
participants NN O O
or NN O O
research NN O O
nurses NN O O
to NN O O
washout NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
solution NN O O
type NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
potential NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
73 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
53 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
full NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
; NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
terminated NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
because NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
catheter NN O O
changes NN O O
or NN O O
self-reported NN O O
'UTI NN O O
' NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
termination NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
hematuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
latex NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
deceased/severe NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
personal NN O I-OUT
choice NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
mean NN O O
differences NN O O
on NN O O
demographic NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Kaplan-Meier NN O O
survival NN O O
curve NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
At NN O O
this NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
evidence NN O O
is NN O O
insufficient NN O O
to NN O O
state NN O O
whether NN O O
catheter NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Contisol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
blocking NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
UTI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
washout NN O I-INT
regimes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (19176440)

BNP-guided NN O O
vs NN O O
symptom-guided NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
therapy NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
Trial NN O O
of NN O O
Intensified NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
Standard NN O I-INT
Medical NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Elderly NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Congestive NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TIME-CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
whether NN O O
intensified NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
therapy NN O O
guided NN O O
by NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
brain NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
peptide NN O O
( NN O O
BNP NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
symptom-guided NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
18-month NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
BNP-guided NN O O
vs NN O O
symptom-guided NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PATIENTS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
multicenter NN O O
Trial NN O O
of NN O O
Intensified NN O O
vs NN O O
Standard NN O O
Medical NN O O
Therapy NN O O
in NN O O
Elderly NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Congestive NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TIME-CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
499 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NYHA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
hospitalization NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
N-terminal NN O I-PAR
BNP NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
limit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
18-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Switzerland NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Uptitration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
guideline-based NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
reduce NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
NYHA NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
symptom-guided NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
BNP NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-INT
limit NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
NYHA NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BNP-guided NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
18-month NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
structured NN O I-OUT
validated NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Heart NN O O
failure NN O O
therapy NN O O
guided NN O O
by NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
BNP NN O O
and NN O O
symptom-guided NN O O
therapy NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
similar NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.91 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.72-1.14 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.39 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
metrics NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
over NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
BNP-guided NN O O
and NN O O
symptom-guided NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
symptom-guided NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
BNP-guided NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.68 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.50-0.92 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O O
failure NN O O
therapy NN O O
guided NN O O
by NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
BNP NN O O
improved NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
for NN O O
interaction NN O O
) NN O O
CONCLUSION NN O O
Heart NN O O
failure NN O O
therapy NN O O
guided NN O O
by NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
BNP NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
overall NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
symptom-guided NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
isrctn.org NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
ISRCTN43596477 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19192127)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
mood NN O O
profiles NN O O
during NN O O
malaria NN O I-INT
chemoprophylaxis NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
four-arm NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
objectively NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
mood NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
users NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-INT
chemoprophylaxis NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
atovaquone-proguanil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chloroquine-proguanil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
mefloquine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nonimmune NN O I-PAR
tourists NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sub-Saharan NN O I-PAR
Africa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
four-arm NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
run-in NN O O
phase NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
travel NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Switzerland NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Israel NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
moods NN O O
and NN O O
feelings NN O O
in NN O O
chemoprophylaxis NN O O
users NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n= NN O I-PAR
547 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
administering NN O O
the NN O O
standardized NN O O
Profile NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Mood NN O I-INT
States NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
POMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
is NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
six NN O O
categories NN O O
of NN O O
feelings NN O O
: NN O O
tension NN O O
, NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
anger NN O O
, NN O O
vigor NN O O
, NN O O
fatigue NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
confusion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
: NN O O
recruitment NN O O
( NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
to NN O O
11 NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
departure NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
departure NN O O
( NN O O
T3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
return NN O O
from NN O O
Africa NN O O
( NN O O
T4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
overall NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
impact NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
means NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
SD NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
norm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
POMS NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
reanalyzed NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
medication NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
T1-T4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
effects NN O O
between NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
medication NN O O
group NN O O
-- NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mefloquine NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
more NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p= NN O O
.011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
confusion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p= NN O O
.011 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
noted NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
tension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
scales NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
less NN O O
tension NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p= NN O O
.045 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p= NN O O
.000 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
aged NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Younger NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
confusion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p= NN O O
.013 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
T2 NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
T1 NN O O
and NN O O
T4 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
mood NN O O
profiles NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
users NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
malaria NN O I-INT
chemoprophylaxis NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
women NN O O
using NN O O
mefloquine NN O O
showed NN O O
more NN O O
fatigue NN O O
and NN O O
confusion NN O O
than NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
chemoprophylaxis NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
tension NN O O
and NN O O
fatigue NN O O
than NN O O
their NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
counterparts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19223284)

Cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
The NN O O
MEDAL NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg. NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
randomized NN O O
OA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
90 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
vs NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
; NN O O
RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
90 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
or NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
for NN O O
thrombotic NN O O
CV NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
upper NN O O
bound NN O O
of NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
< NN O O
1.30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
cohorts NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
504 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
with NN O O
mean NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
from NN O O
19.4 NN O O
to NN O O
20.8 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
thrombotic NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
to NN O O
diclofenac NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
0.96 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.81 NN O O
, NN O O
1.15 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
to NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/liver NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
than NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
cohort NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
0.46 NN O O
( NN O O
0.39 NN O O
, NN O O
0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0.52 NN O O
( NN O O
0.42 NN O O
, NN O O
0.63 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.49 NN O O
( NN O O
0.39 NN O O
, NN O O
0.62 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
OA NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
mg NN O O
OA NN O O
and NN O O
RA NN O O
cohorts NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
was NN O O
3.4-3.6 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
diastolic NN O O
BP NN O O
: NN O O
1.0-1.5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
diclofenac NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
average NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
0.9-1.9 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
diastolic NN O O
BP NN O O
: NN O O
0.0-0.5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
agents NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
similar NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Long-term NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
use NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thrombotic NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renovascular NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
favourable NN O O
GI/liver NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19272375)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
naproxen NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
aspirin-induced NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
analyse NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
co-administration NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
NSAID NN O I-INT
on NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
eleven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
during NN O O
4 NN O O
separate NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
occasion NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
naproxen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O I-OUT
hemostasis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
platelet NN O O
function NN O O
analyser NN O O
( NN O O
PFA-100 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
measures NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
closure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
collagen- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
epinephrine-coated NN O I-OUT
pore NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
aggregating NN O I-OUT
platelets NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
flowing NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Naproxen NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
anti-aggregatory NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
after NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
CT NN O I-OUT
rising NN O O
from NN O O
104+/-16 NN O O
s NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
212+/-69 NN O O
s NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
drug NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

Diclofenac NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
anti-aggregatory NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
two NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
rise NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
109+/-19 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
148+/-56 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
168+/-66 NN O O
s NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Acetaminophen NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similarly NN O O
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
all NN O O
combinations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
co-administration NN O O
of NN O O
NSAID NN O I-INT
and NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
naproxen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
lost NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O O
daily NN O O
co-administration NN O O
of NN O O
NSAID NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (19278832)

Stability NN O O
, NN O O
tipping NN O O
and NN O O
relapse NN O O
of NN O O
bone-borne NN O O
versus NN O O
tooth-borne NN O O
surgically NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
rapid NN O I-INT
maxillary NN O I-INT
expansion NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
patient NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
stability NN O O
, NN O O
tipping NN O O
and NN O O
relapse NN O O
after NN O O
surgically NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
rapid NN O I-INT
maxillary NN O I-INT
expansion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SARME NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
bone-borne NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tooth-borne NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
skeletally NN O I-PAR
matured NN O I-PAR
non-syndromal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
transverse NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
hypoplasia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
bone-borne NN O O
( NN O O
n=25 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
tooth-borne NN O O
( NN O O
n=21 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
surgical NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
corticotomy NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Expansion NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
bone-borne NN O O
or NN O O
tooth-borne NN O O
device NN O O
. NN O O

Dental NN O O
study NN O O
casts NN O O
, NN O O
lateral NN O O
and NN O O
postero-anterior NN O O
cephalograms NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
distraction NN O O
phase NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
. NN O O

Stability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
segmental NN O I-OUT
maxillary NN O I-OUT
tipping NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

23 NN O I-PAR
bone-borne NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
tooth-borne NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Widening NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
at NN O O
canine NN O O
, NN O O
premolar NN O O
and NN O O
molar NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Relapse NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
the NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
distance NN O O
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
palatal NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
premolar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
molar NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maxilla NN O O
moves NN O O
slightly NN O O
downward NN O O
in NN O O
SARME NN O O
. NN O O

Segmental NN O I-OUT
maxillary NN O I-OUT
tipping NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
SARME NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
widening NN O O
achieved NN O O
at NN O O
dental NN O O
level NN O O
is NN O O
stable NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Over-correction NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

Tipping NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
maxillary NN O O
segments NN O O
and NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
retention NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
equal NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19284641)

Hyperbaric NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Several NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
hyperbaric NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvements NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hyperbaric NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
62 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
2-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
4.92 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.21 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
hourly NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1.3 NN O I-INT
atmosphere NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
atm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
33 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
slightly NN O I-INT
pressurized NN O I-INT
room NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1.03 NN O I-INT
atm NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
29 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ATEC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
40 NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
physician NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
receptive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0473 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0102 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
9/30 NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
very NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
or NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
2/26 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0471 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
24/30 NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
improved NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
10/26 NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0024 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0336 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
receptive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0168 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0322 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
except NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
irritability NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0311 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
ATEC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensory/cognitive NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0367 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Post-hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
over NN O O
age NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
initial NN O O
autism NN O O
severity NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
robust NN O O
improvements NN O O
. NN O O

Hyperbaric NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
hyperbaric NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
1.3 NN O O
atm NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
oxygen NN O O
for NN O O
40 NN O O
hourly NN O O
sessions NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
receptive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sensory/cognitive NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
slightly NN O O
pressurized NN O O
room NN O O
air NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
NCT00335790 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19371522)

Randomized NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
prochlorperazine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ED NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
UNLABELLED NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
headaches NN O I-PAR
account NN O O
for NN O O
approximately NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
ED NN O O
visits NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
migraines NN O O
being NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
defined NN O O
primary NN O O
headache NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
goals NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
migraines NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
prochlorperazine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
subject NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
100 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
octreotide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
prochlorperazine NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
2-minute NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O O
at NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
producing NN O O
clinical NN O O
success NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Restlessness NN O I-OUT
consistent NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
akathisia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
by NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PC NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
by NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PC NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
such NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
contacted NN O O
for NN O O
follow-up NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
to NN O O
72 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
enrollment NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
that NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prochlorperazine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
experienced NN O O
some NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Prochlorperazine NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
octreotide NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
migraine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
caused NN O O
more NN O O
restlessness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19371887)

Rapid NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
highly NN O O
selective NN O O
alpha1A-adrenoceptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
silodosin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
pooled NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
silodosin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
benign NN O O
prostatic NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Men NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
International NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
Symptom NN O I-PAR
Score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
peak NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
flow NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
ml NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
silodosin NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breakfast NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Prostate NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
last NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
ANCOVA NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
923 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
466 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
silodosin NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
457 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
0.5 NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
silodosin NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
achieved NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
International NN O I-OUT
Prostate NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
difference NN O O
-1.9 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
irritative NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
obstructive NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-1.4 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
subscores NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Prostate NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-4.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.3 NN O O
for NN O O
silodosin NN O O
vs NN O O
-2.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.4 NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
( NN O O
silodosin NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Prostate NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
subscores NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ml NN O O
per NN O O
second NN O O
) NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
silodosin NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
remained NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
through NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
treatment NN O O
emergent NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
( NN O O
mostly NN O O
mild NN O O
) NN O O
retrograde NN O I-OUT
ejaculation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
silodosin NN O O
28.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
silodosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
discontinued NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
retrograde NN O I-OUT
ejaculation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Proportions NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
emergent NN O O
orthostatic NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
silodosin NN O O
( NN O O
2.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
silodosin NN O O
produced NN O O
rapid NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Silodosin NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
orthostatic NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19435491)

The NN O O
ADDITION-Cambridge NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
-- NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
for NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
screen-detected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
increasing NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
poses NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

Population-based NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
this NN O O
growing NN O O
burden NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
strategy NN O O
remain NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
ADDITION-Cambridge NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
stepwise NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
diabetes NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
multifactorial NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
people NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
screen-detected NN O I-INT
diabetes NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
63 NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
East NN O I-PAR
Anglia NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O O
undertook NN O O
the NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
33 NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
no NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RC NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
unbalanced NN O O
( NN O O
1:3:3 NN O O
) NN O O
randomisation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remaining NN O O
27 NN O O
practices NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
IT NN O O
and NN O O
RC NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
risk NN O O
score NN O O
incorporating NN O O
routine NN O O
practice NN O O
data NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
40-69 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
undiagnosed NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
screening NN O O
practices NN O O
, NN O O
high-risk NN O O
individuals NN O O
were NN O O
invited NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
stepwise NN O O
screening NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
IT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
diabetes NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
optimised NN O O
through NN O O
guidelines NN O O
, NN O O
target-led NN O O
multifactorial NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
audit NN O O
, NN O O
feedback NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
academic NN O O
detailing NN O O
for NN O O
practice NN O O
teams NN O O
, NN O O
alongside NN O O
provision NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O O
materials NN O O
for NN O O
newly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
are NN O O
modelled NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
five NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
include NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
utility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
screening NN O O
programme NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
level NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
through NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
high-risk NN O O
individuals NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
ADDITION-Cambridge NN O O
is NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
defined NN O O
high-risk NN O O
group NN O O
accessible NN O O
through NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
addresses NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
population-based NN O O
screening NN O O
for NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
and NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
intensive NN O O
multifactorial NN O O
treatment NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
trajectory NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
algorithm NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
studies NN O O
including NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
education NN O O
materials NN O O
are NN O O
informed NN O O
by NN O O
psychological NN O O
theory NN O O
. NN O O

ADDITION-Cambridge NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
timely NN O O
evidence NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
intensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
inform NN O O
policy NN O O
decisions NN O O
concerning NN O O
screening NN O O
for NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
ISRCTN86769081 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19436938)

Osteoporosis NN O I-INT
and NN O O
gait NN O O
and NN O O
balance NN O O
disturbances NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
sarcopenic NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Zealanders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Bone NN O O
, NN O O
muscle NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fat NN O O
may NN O O
affect NN O O
gait NN O O
and NN O O
balance NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
prevalent NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
muscle NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
gait NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
balance NN O I-PAR
deficits NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Low NN O O
muscle NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
fat NN O O
mass NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
functional NN O O
deficits NN O O
and NN O O
poorer NN O O
bone NN O O
health NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
falls NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
fractures NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Decreasing NN O O
bone NN O O
density NN O O
and NN O O
muscle NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
fat NN O O
mass NN O O
may NN O O
act NN O O
synergistically NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
gait NN O O
and NN O O
balance NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighty-three NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
72.7 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
56-93 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
28.2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4.9 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
16.6-46.0 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Zealand NN O I-PAR
falls NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
appendicular NN O I-OUT
skeletal NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ASM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineralization NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
dual NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
X-ray NN O I-INT
absorptiometry NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
characterize NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
lean NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NL NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sarcopenic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SS NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sarcopenic NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SO NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OO NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
phenotypes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Functional NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
timed NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
go NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chair NN O I-INT
stand NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
leg NN O I-INT
stand NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
step NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Regression NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
medications NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
osteoporosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
SS NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
SO NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
NL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
OO NN O O
. NN O O

Femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
ASM NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
poor NN O O
chair NN O I-OUT
stand NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
beta NN O O
-3.3 NN O O
, NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
1.6 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SO NN O O
scored NN O O
lowest NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
chair NN O O
stand NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
step NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O I-OUT
ASM NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
faster NN O O
timed NN O O
up NN O O
and NN O O
go NN O O
performance NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Osteoporosis NN O O
was NN O O
prevalent NN O O
in NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
ASM NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
SS NN O O
and NN O O
SO NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
gait NN O O
and NN O O
balance NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SO NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
has NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
falls NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
fractures NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19470807)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
balance-based NN O O
torso NN O I-INT
weighting NN O I-INT
for NN O O
improving NN O O
upright NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Torso NN O O
weighting NN O O
has NN O O
sometimes NN O O
been NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
upright NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
parameters NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
weighting NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
been NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
balance-based NN O I-INT
torso NN O I-INT
weighting NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BBTW NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
immediate NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
upright NN O O
mobility NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
2-phase NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
phase NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
subsequently NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
alternate NN O O
weight-placement NN O O
. NN O O

Tests NN O O
of NN O O
upright NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
included NN O O
: NN O O
timed NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
go NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TUG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sharpened NN O I-OUT
Romberg NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
360-degree NN O I-OUT
turns NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
25-foot NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
computerized NN O I-OUT
platform NN O I-OUT
posturography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
again NN O O
with NN O O
weights NN O O
placed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
membership NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
phases NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
physical NN O O
therapist NN O O
assessed NN O O
balance NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
BBTW NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
placed NN O O
weights NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
balance NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
weights NN O O
placed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
alternate NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
standard NN O O
weight NN O O
placement NN O O
of NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
People NN O O
with NN O O
BBTW NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
25-foot NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
TUG NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
weight NN O O
placement NN O O
. NN O O

BBTW NN O O
participants NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
kg NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
participant NN O O
's NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
BBTW NN O I-INT
can NN O O
have NN O O
immediate NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
nonweighted NN O O
condition NN O O
for NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
weighted NN O O
condition NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
are NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
but NN O O
have NN O O
balance NN O O
and NN O O
mobility NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19508318)

One-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
delay NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
their NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
debate NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
and NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
childhood NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O O
is NN O O
most NN O O
helpful NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O O
programme NN O O
provided NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
ceased NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
families NN O O
who NN O O
benefited NN O O
most NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3-5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Melbourne NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O I-INT
Half NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Bayley NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Infant NN O I-OUT
Development NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Wechsler NN O I-OUT
Preschool NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Primary NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Intelligence NN O I-OUT
Revised NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Preschool NN O I-OUT
Behaviour NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Bayley NN O I-OUT
Behaviour NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Behaviour NN O I-OUT
Screening NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
tests NN O O
administered NN O O
pre-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
Family NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
empowerment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
assessments NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
conclusion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
later NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
while NN O O
significant NN O O
behavioural NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
post NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Reliable NN O I-OUT
Change NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
non-verbal NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
deteriorated NN O O
, NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
. NN O O

Improvements NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Improvements NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
the NN O O
provision NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O O
programme NN O O
to NN O O
preschool NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
developmental NN O O
disabilities NN O O
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
from NN O O
highly NN O O
stressed NN O I-OUT
families NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
most NN O O
, NN O O
reinforcing NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
involving NN O O
families NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
childhood NN O O
intervention NN O O
programmes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19515873)

Folic NN O I-INT
acid-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
non-ST NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Homocysteinemia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

Folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
vitamins NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
lowering NN O O
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid-based NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
on NN O O
secondary NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
non-ST-segment NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
comprised NN O O
240 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
non-ST-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
folate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
=116 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
=124 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
folate NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
400 NN O O
microg NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
composite NN O O
endpoint NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
re-hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
folate NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
serious NN O O
re-hospitalization NN O O
alone NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Advanced NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Folic NN O I-INT
acid-based NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
beneficial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
even NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
harmful NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
and NN O O
non-ST-elevation NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
supplements NN O O
are NN O O
suggested NN O O
. NN O O

Controlled NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Registry NN O O
no NN O O
. NN O O

ISRCTN30249553 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19523697)

Loss NN O O
of NN O O
autonomy NN O O
among NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stay NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
transfer NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
geriatric NN O I-INT
ward NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
autonomy NN O O
of NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stay NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
post-ICU NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
in NN O O
geriatric NN O I-INT
ward NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
functional NN O O
autonomy NN O O
before NN O O
ICU NN O O
stay NN O O
, NN O O
just NN O O
after NN O O
ICU NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
just NN O O
after NN O O
hospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
post-ICU NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
: NN O O
geriatric NN O I-INT
ward NN O I-INT
and NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Autonomy NN O O
was NN O O
usually NN O O
recovered NN O O
rapidly NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
recovery NN O O
depended NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
previous NN O O
autonomy NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
recovered NN O O
their NN O O
previous NN O O
autonomy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
Barthel NN O O
indexes NN O O
were NN O O
81.5+/-30.4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
geriatric NN O O
management NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
70.5+/-33.4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
management NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
prematurely NN O O
ended NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
insufficient NN O O
recruitment NN O O
flow NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
underline NN O O
the NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autonomy NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Early NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
autonomy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
elderly NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
seems NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
attractive NN O I-OUT
solution NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Above NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
results NN O O
should NN O O
also NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19535468)

Emotional NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
motivational NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interpersonal NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Through NN O O
behavioural NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
social-motivational NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
musical NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
between NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
therapist NN O O
in NN O O
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
emotional NN O O
, NN O O
motivational NN O O
and NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
responsiveness NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
engagement NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
employed NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
subject NN O O
comparison NN O O
design NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
toy NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
DVD NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
markedly NN O O
more NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
events NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
'joy NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
'emotional NN O I-OUT
synchronicity NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
'initiation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
than NN O O
toy NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
therapist NN O O
's NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
demands NN O O
, NN O O
'compliant NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
music NN O O
therapy NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
toy NN O O
play NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
'no NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
toy NN O O
play NN O O
sessions NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
exploratory NN O O
study NN O O
found NN O O
significant NN O O
evidence NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
promoting NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
motivational NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19562475)

Brief NN O O
report NN O O
: NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
parent-reported NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
school-age NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
parent-reported NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7-11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
16 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
waitlist NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
program NN O O
emphasized NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
exposure NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
school NN O O
consultation NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
emotion NN O O
regulation NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
checklist NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
posttreatment/postwaitlist NN O O
and NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

CBT NN O I-INT
outperformed NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O O
condition NN O O
at NN O O
posttreatment/postwaitlist NN O O
on NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
parent-reported NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Cohen NN O O
's NN O O
d NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
.77 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
gains NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
modality NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O O
samples NN O O
and NN O O
broader NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
indicated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19577150)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
arch NN O O
dimension NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
1-phase NN O O
vs NN O O
2-phase NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
malocclusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
We NN O O
compared NN O O
arch NN O O
dimension NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
1-phase NN O O
and NN O O
2-phase NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
malocclusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Orthodontics NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1990 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
During NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
86 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
bionator NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
headgear/biteplane NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
81 NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
observation NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
full NN O I-INT
orthodontic NN O I-INT
appliances NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Arch NN O O
dimensions NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
; NN O O
maxillary NN O O
and NN O O
mandibular NN O O
alginate NN O O
impressions NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
Class NN O O
II NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
observation NN O O
, NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
fixed NN O O
appliance NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
orthodontic NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
approximately NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
. NN O O

Alginate NN O O
impressions NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
dental NN O O
arch NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
were NN O O
poured NN O O
in NN O O
orthodontic NN O O
stone NN O O
, NN O O
trimmed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
photocopied NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
occlusal NN O O
aspect NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
images NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
scanned NN O O
and NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Although NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
maxillary NN O O
and NN O O
mandibular NN O O
arches NN O O
after NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
evident NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
full NN O O
orthodontic NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
retention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
arch NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1-phase NN O O
or NN O O
2-phase NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Class NN O O
II NN O O
malocclusion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19590523)

Excimer NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
trabeculotomy NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
180 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
trabeculoplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O O
open-angle NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
2-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
excimer NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
trabeculotomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ELT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ab NN O O
interno NN O O
vs NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
trabeculoplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SLT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
over NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
POAG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
ELT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
SLT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

ELT NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
carried NN O I-INT
out NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
XeCl NN O I-INT
Excimer NN O I-INT
Laser NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
wavelength NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
308 NN O I-INT
nm NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eight NN O I-INT
spots NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
equally NN O I-INT
distributed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
distance NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
microm NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
another NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
trabeculum NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
SLT NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
frequency-doubled NN O I-INT
q-switched NN O I-INT
neodymium NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
yytrium-aluminum-garnet NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
wavelength NN O I-INT
532 NN O I-INT
nm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Approximately NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
adjacent NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
overlapping NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
spots NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
distributed NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
180 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
trabecular NN O I-INT
meshwork NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
ranging NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
0.7 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
mJ NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
ELT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SLT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Success NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
> NN O O
or=20 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
further NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
complete NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
53.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ELT NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SLT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.35 NN O O
, NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
qualified NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ELT NN O O
and NN O O
26.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SLT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
.Mean NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
25.0+/-1.9 NN O O
to NN O O
17.6+/-2.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
-29.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ELT NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
23.9+/-0.9 NN O O
to NN O O
19.1+/-1.8 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
-21 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SLT NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
ELT NN O O
and NN O O
SLT NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
techniques NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
POAG NN O O
refractory NN O O
to NN O O
medical NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1960378)

Treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
interferon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Factors NN O O
predicting NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Several NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
alpha-interferon NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HBe NN O I-PAR
antigen-positive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
vary NN O O
from NN O O
25-50 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
those NN O O
infected NN O O
at NN O O
birth NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
are NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
pretreatment NN O I-PAR
variables NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
significance NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-OUT
prediction NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
114 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
alpha-interferon NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
per NN O O
m2 NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
anti-human NN O I-OUT
immunodeficiency NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
AST NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
on NN O O
univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
stepwise NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
virus NN O O
DNA NN O O
, NN O O
AST NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
predicted NN O O
response NN O O
independently NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
reliable NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
predictive NN O O
factors NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
anti-human NN O I-OUT
immunodeficiency NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
icteric NN O I-OUT
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
AST NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
45 NN O O
IU NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
icteric NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
and NN O O
AST NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
85 NN O O
IU NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
predicted NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
HBsAg NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
HBeAg NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
infection NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
duration NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19621686)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
transthoracic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
transhiatal NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
for NN O O
esophageal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Asians NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/AIMS NN O O
Transthoracic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
transhiatal NN O I-INT
esophagectomy NN O I-INT
are NN O O
two NN O O
common NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
esophageal NN O O
cancer NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

Prospective NN O O
studies NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
Asian NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
few NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
comparing NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
from NN O O
January NN O O
2003 NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
comparable NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
the NN O O
transthoracic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
transhiatal NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
in NN O O
turn NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
reconstructed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
stomach NN O I-INT
interposition NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
retrosternal NN O I-INT
route NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Discharged NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
followed-up NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
outpatient NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
questioned NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
topics NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
( NN O I-OUT
i NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ii NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
swallowing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
iii NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
iv NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
v NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vi NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vii NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
viii NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
sociality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ix NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
happiness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
self NN O I-OUT
respect NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
third NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sixth NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
twelfth NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Also NN O O
the NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eighty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
leakage NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
transthoracic NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t-test NN O O
and NN O O
Fischer NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
Student NN O O
t-test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
by NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.286 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
score NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
transhiatal NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
transthoracic NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
, NN O O
sixth NN O O
and NN O O
twelfth NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Transhiatal NN O I-INT
esophagectomy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
fast NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
survival NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
transthoracic NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
leakage NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19622708)

A NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
alleviating NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
experimentally NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
depression-related NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation NN O O
among NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
one NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Depression NN O O
and NN O O
inflammation NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
among NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
inflammation NN O O
can NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
converse NN O O
remains NN O O
untested NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
spanned NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
assessments NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Mixed-effects NN O O
modeling NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
reduced NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Center NN O O
for NN O O
Epidemiological NN O O
Studies NN O O
Depression NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
Profile NN O O
of NN O O
Mood NN O O
States NN O O
Depression NN O O
and NN O O
Fatigue NN O O
subscales NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Medical NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
Study-Short NN O O
Form NN O O
36 NN O O
Bodily NN O O
Pain NN O O
subscale NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
are NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation NN O O
( NN O O
white NN O O
blood NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
, NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
count NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
helper/suppressor NN O O
ratio NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mediation NN O O
analyses NN O O
tested NN O O
whether NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
helper/suppressor NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
inflammation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
experiment NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
psychological NN O O
treatment NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
would NN O O
also NN O O
reduce NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
reduced NN O O
directly NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
indirectly NN O O
inflammation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Psychological NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
treat NN O O
effectively NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19644033)

Isometric NN O I-INT
contractions NN O I-INT
reduce NN O O
plantar NN O I-OUT
flexor NN O I-OUT
moment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Achilles NN O I-OUT
tendon NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
remove NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
stretch NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
isometric NN O I-INT
contractions NN O I-INT
and NN O O
passive NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
muscle-tendon NN O I-INT
mechanics NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
First NN O O
, NN O O
peak NN O I-INT
concentric NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
ankle NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
moment NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
isokinetic NN O I-INT
dynamometer NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
electromyographic NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
triceps NN O I-INT
surae NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
real-time NN O I-INT
motion NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
leg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Achilles-medial NN O I-INT
gastrocnemius NN O I-INT
muscle-tendon NN O I-INT
junction NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
simultaneously NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Second NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
performed NN O O
six NN O I-INT
8-s NN O I-INT
maximal NN O I-INT
voluntary NN O I-INT
isometric NN O I-INT
contractions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MVICs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
repeating NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
isometric NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
moment NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
MVICs NN O O
, NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
concentric NN O I-OUT
moment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
11.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.90 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
triceps NN O I-OUT
surae NN O I-OUT
electromyographic NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
21.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Achilles NN O I-OUT
tendon NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
passive NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
moment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

Third NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
performed NN O O
three NN O O
60-s NN O O
static NN O I-INT
plantar NN O I-INT
flexor NN O I-INT
stretches NN O I-INT
before NN O O
being NN O O
retested NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
stretch NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
stretch NN O O
protocol NN O O
caused NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
stretching NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
recovery NN O O
in NN O O
concentric NN O I-OUT
moment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
at NN O O
dorsiflexed NN O O
joint NN O O
angles NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
Achilles NN O I-OUT
tendon NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
passive NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
moment NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
MVICs NN O O
interrupts NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
stretch-induced NN O O
losses NN O O
in NN O O
active NN O O
and NN O O
passive NN O O
plantar NN O O
flexor NN O O
joint NN O O
moment NN O O
and NN O O
neuromuscular NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
largely NN O O
because NN O O
concentric NN O O
strength NN O O
and NN O O
tendon NN O O
properties NN O O
were NN O O
already NN O O
affected NN O O
. NN O O

Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
Achilles NN O I-OUT
tendon NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
etiological NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
muscle-tendon NN O O
strain NN O O
injury NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19666626)

Ultrasonographic NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
characterisation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
human NN O O
Achilles NN O O
tendons NN O O
: NN O O
quantification NN O O
of NN O O
tendon NN O O
structure NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
three-dimensional NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Achilles NN O I-INT
tendon NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
ultrasonographic NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
characterisation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UTC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
can NN O O
differentiate NN O O
between NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
and NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
tendons NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Case-control NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Sports NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Hague NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Centre NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
tendons NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
midportion NN O I-PAR
Achilles NN O I-PAR
tendinopathy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
matched NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
tendons NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Symptomatic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
asymptomatic NN O I-INT
tendons NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
scanned NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
UTC NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O I-INT
researcher NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ultrasonographic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-INT
collection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
blinded NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
independent NN O O
observers NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
The NN O O
raw NN O O
ultrasonographic NN O O
images NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
custom-designed NN O O
algorithm NN O O
that NN O O
quantifies NN O O
the NN O O
three-dimensional NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
echo NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
qua NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
contiguous NN O I-OUT
transverse NN O I-OUT
images NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
three-dimensional NN O O
stability NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
tendon NN O O
structure NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

UTC NN O O
categorises NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
echotypes NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
represent NN O O
( NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
highly NN O I-OUT
stable NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
medium NN O I-OUT
stable NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
III NN O O
) NN O O
highly NN O I-OUT
variable NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
constantly NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
variable NN O O
distribution NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
echo-types NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
tendon NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
inter-observer NN O O
reliability NN O O
of NN O O
UTC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Symptomatic NN O O
tendons NN O O
showed NN O O
less NN O O
pixels NN O O
in NN O O
echo-types NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
than NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
tendons NN O O
( NN O O
51.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
76.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
less NN O O
three-dimensional NN O O
stability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
echo NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O O
maximum NN O O
tendon NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
9.2 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
6.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Intraclass NN O I-OUT
Correlation NN O I-OUT
Coefficient NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ICC NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
interobserver NN O O
reliability NN O O
of NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
echo-types NN O O
I+II NN O O
was NN O O
0.95 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ICC NN O O
for NN O O
tendon NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.84 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
UTC NN O O
can NN O O
quantitatively NN O O
evaluate NN O O
tendon NN O O
structure NN O O
and NN O O
thereby NN O O
discriminate NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
and NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
tendons NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
such NN O O
, NN O O
UTC NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
treatment NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19682100)

Long-term NN O O
( NN O O
96-week NN O O
) NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
antiretroviral-na?ve NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-INT
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
MONARK NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
toxicities NN O O
, NN O O
cost NN O O
and NN O O
complexity NN O O
of NN O O
triple NN O O
combinations NN O O
warrant NN O O
the NN O O
search NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
boosted NN O O
protease NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
PI NN O O
) NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

MONotherapy NN O I-PAR
AntiRetroviral NN O I-PAR
Kaletra NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MONARK NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-INT
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
zidovudine/lamivudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral-na?ve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
136 NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral-na?ve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
CD4 NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
cells/microL NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
RNA NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
100,000 NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
RNA NN O I-PAR
copies/mL NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dosed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
83 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
zidovudine/lamivudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
53 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O I-INT
focus NN O I-PAR
here NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
intent-to-treat NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
initially NN O O
involved NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O O
83 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
HIV NN O O
RNA NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
48 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
56 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
week NN O O
96 NN O O
, NN O O
39 NN O O
of NN O O
83 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
50 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
, NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
83 NN O O
had NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
50 NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
83 NN O O
had NN O O
HIV NN O O
RNA NN O O
> NN O O
400 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
. NN O O

Focusing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
56 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
HIV NN O O
RNA NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
48 NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
of NN O O
56 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
HIV NN O O
RNA NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
96 NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
week NN O O
96 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
discontinued NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
allocated NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
changed NN O O
for NN O O
seven NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PI-associated NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
mutations NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
evident NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
83 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
arm NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
96 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
By NN O O
ITT NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
39 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
83 NN O O
patients NN O O
initially NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
had NN O O
HIV NN O O
RNA NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
96 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
occurrence NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
low-level NN O O
viraemia NN O O
( NN O O
50-500 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

First-line NN O I-INT
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
not NN O O
be NN O O
systematically NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19696287)

Depiction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypervascular NN O I-OUT
hepatocellular NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
64-MDCT NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
moderate- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high-concentration NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
material NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
flush NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
prospectively NN O O
the NN O O
depiction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypervascular NN O I-OUT
hepatocellular NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
64-MDCT NN O O
scans NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
contrast NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
of NN O O
varying NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
flush NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
149 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypervascular NN O I-PAR
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
protocols NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
contrast NN O I-INT
material NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
I/mL NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
370 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
I/mL NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
370 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
I/mL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
flush NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
all NN O O
protocols NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-INT
iodine NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
kilogram NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
( NN O O
516 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
injection NN O O
duration NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Enhancement NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
aorta NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
portal NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor-liver NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
multiphase NN O O
CT NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Aortic NN O I-OUT
enhancement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
protocols NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
protocols NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
phases NN O O
. NN O O

Portal NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
enhancement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
protocols NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
phase NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
protocols NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
protocols NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Tumor-liver NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
protocols NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
protocols NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
phases NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
between NN O O
protocols NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
C. NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
enhancement NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
concentration NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
material NN O O
for NN O O
depiction NN O O
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

Adding NN O O
a NN O O
saline NN O O
flush NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
high-concentration NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
eliminated NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
depiction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hepatocellular NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
moderate- NN O O
and NN O O
high-concentration NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19701509)

Enamel NN O O
and NN O O
dentin NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
following NN O O
gaseous NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
gaseous NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
on NN O O
enamel NN O O
and NN O O
dentin NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
self-etching NN O O
adhesive NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
shear NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
adhesion NN O O
on NN O O
enamel NN O O
( NN O O
protocol NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
microtensile NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
dentin NN O O
( NN O O
protocol NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Protocol NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
96 NN O I-PAR
bovine NN O I-PAR
incisors NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
enamel NN O O
surfaces NN O O
were NN O O
bonded NN O O
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-INT
1E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Clearfil NN O I-INT
Protect NN O I-INT
Bond NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Clearfil NN O I-INT
Protect NN O I-INT
Bond NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Xeno NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Xeno NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ozone NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
for NN O O
80 NN O O
s. NN O O
Shear NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
universal NN O O
testing NN O O
machine NN O O
. NN O O

Protocol NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
noncarious NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
selected NN O O
. NN O O

Middle/deep NN O O
dentin NN O O
was NN O O
exposed NN O O
and NN O O
bonded NN O O
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-INT
1D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ozone+Clearfil NN O I-INT
Protect NN O I-INT
Bond NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Clearfil NN O I-INT
Protect NN O I-INT
Bond NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ozone+Xeno NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Xeno NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four-mm-thick NN O O
buildups NN O O
were NN O O
built NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
adhesives NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
sectioned NN O O
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nontrimming NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

Specimens NN O O
were NN O O
stressed NN O O
until NN O O
failure NN O O
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
failure NN O O
modes NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Shear NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microtensile NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
two-way NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
and NN O O
Tukey NN O O
's NN O O
post-hoc NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
ozone NN O O
treated NN O O
specimens NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
on NN O O
enamel NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
on NN O O
dentin NN O I-OUT
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tested NN O O
adhesive NN O O
. NN O O

Clearfil NN O O
Protect NN O O
Bond NN O O
showed NN O O
higher NN O O
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
enamel NN O O
than NN O O
Xeno NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ozone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ozone NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
to NN O O
disinfect NN O O
the NN O O
cavity NN O O
before NN O O
placing NN O O
a NN O O
restoration NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
immediate NN O O
enamel NN O O
and NN O O
dentin NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19772883)

Double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
aberrant NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
are NN O O
several NN O O
lines NN O O
of NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
plays NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiology NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
access NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
DSM NN O I-PAR
IV-TR NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
chief NN O I-PAR
complaint NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
disruptive NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
pentoxifylline+risperidone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo+risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
starting NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
protocols NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
had NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Lethargy/Social NN O I-OUT
Withdrawal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Stereotypic NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity/Noncompliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Inappropriate NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
atypical NN O I-INT
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
might NN O O
have NN O O
synergistic NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19780729)

Prospective NN O O
randomised NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-INT
trainer NN O I-INT
EPI-NO NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
perineal NN O I-OUT
trauma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
several NN O O
non-randomised NN O O
trials NN O O
training NN O O
with NN O O
EPI-NO NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
intact NN O O
perineum NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
episiotomy NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
shortened NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
labour NN O O
and NN O O
lowered NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
killers NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
verify NN O O
the NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
EPI-NO NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Randomised NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
single-blind NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
276 NN O I-PAR
primigravidae NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
training NN O O
with NN O O
EPI-NO NN O I-INT
we NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
perineum NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
37.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
25.7 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
towards NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
episiotomy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
41.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
50.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
regarding NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perineal NN O I-OUT
tears NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Training NN O O
with NN O O
EPI-NO NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
significantly NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
having NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
perineum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduces NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
episiotomy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19781408)

Design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DEFINE NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
EFficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CETP NN O O
INhibition NN O O
with NN O O
AnacEtrapib NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Residual NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
( NN O O
CV NN O O
) NN O O
risk NN O O
often NN O O
remains NN O O
high NN O O
despite NN O O
statin NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
New NN O O
therapies NN O O
to NN O O
raise NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
currently NN O O
being NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

Anacetrapib NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
cholesteryl NN O O
ester NN O O
transfer NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CETP NN O O
) NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
that NN O O
raises NN O O
HDL-C NN O O
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
statin NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
electrolytes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
aldosterone NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
another NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
class NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
anacetrapib NN O I-INT
to NN O O
date NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Determining NN O O
the NN O O
EFficacy NN O O
and NN O O
Tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
CETP NN O O
INhibition NN O O
with NN O O
AnacEtrapib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
DEFINE NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
anacetrapib NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
equivalents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials.gov NN O I-PAR
NCT00685776 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Cholesterol NN O I-PAR
Education NN O I-PAR
Program-Adult NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
Panel NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-PAR
goal NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
lipid-modifying NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
are NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
anacetrapib NN O I-INT
, NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
, NN O O
poststudy NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
are NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anacetrapib NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Comprehensive NN O O
preplanned NN O O
interim NN O O
safety NN O O
analyses NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
6- NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
key NN O O
safety NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrolytes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
preplanned NN O O
Bayesian NN O O
analysis NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
interpret NN O O
the NN O O
CV NN O O
event NN O O
distribution NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
limited NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
events NN O O
expected NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2,757 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
153 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1,623 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Lipid NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
are NN O O
anticipated NN O O
in NN O O
2010 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19798489)

Eye NN O O
movements NN O O
affirm NN O O
: NN O O
automatic NN O I-OUT
overt NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arrow NN O I-OUT
cueing NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
typical NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
People NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
reduced NN O O
interest NN O I-OUT
towards NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
environment NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
tendency NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
follow NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
people NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
real NN O O
world NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
eye-gaze NN O O
cues NN O O
in NN O O
experimental NN O O
paradigms NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
behaviour NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
atypical NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
tested NN O O
this NN O O
possibility NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
cueing NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
eye-movement NN O I-INT
recording NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
and NN O O
arrow NN O O
pointing NN O O
distractors NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
overt NN O I-OUT
cueing NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
saccadic NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
proportions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
saccades NN O I-OUT
executed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cued NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
instead NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
participant NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
confirm NN O O
previous NN O O
reports NN O O
that NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
cues NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
arrow NN O O
cues NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
automatic NN O I-OUT
orienting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
overt NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
arrow NN O O
and NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
cues NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
overt NN O I-OUT
attentional NN O I-OUT
orienting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
centrally NN O O
presented NN O O
schematic NN O O
directional NN O O
distractors NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
typical NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19821888)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
fluid NN O O
types NN O O
for NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
mallard NN O I-PAR
ducks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Anas NN O I-PAR
platyrhynchos NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
LD NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
mallard NN O I-PAR
ducks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Anas NN O I-PAR
platyrhynchos NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O O
rate NN O O
among NN O O
3 NN O O
fluid NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
regenerative NN O O
RBC NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Medical NN O I-PAR
College NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Wisconsin NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
facility NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ANIMALS NN O O
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
mallard NN O I-PAR
ducks NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
LD NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
the NN O O
fluid NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Phlebotomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
LD NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fluid NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Ducks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluid NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
study NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
mL/kg NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
crystalloids NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hetastarch NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
hemoglobin-based NN O I-INT
oxygen-carrying NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBOCS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
LD NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
blood NN O O
volume NN O O
was NN O O
removed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluid NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
create NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
fluid NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
birds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
crystalloid NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
birds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HES NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
birds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HBOCS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
fluid NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Relative NN O O
polychromasia NN O O
evaluated NN O O
post-phlebotomy NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
regeneration NN O O
starting NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
continuing NN O O
through NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
LD NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mallard NN O I-PAR
ducks NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
total NN O O
blood NN O O
volume NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
appreciated NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
fluid NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
of NN O O
decreased NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HBOCS NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
early NN O O
regenerative NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
apparent NN O O
following NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1984893)

Unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19858761)

Medication NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Many NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functionally NN O I-OUT
impairing NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
tested NN O O
whether NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
COMB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
behavior NN O O
management NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
medication NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
MED NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
This NN O O
24-week NN O O
, NN O O
three-site NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-groups NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
enrolled NN O O
124 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
frequent NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
self-injury NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
3:2 NN O O
to NN O O
COMB NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
75 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
MED NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
49 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
received NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
from NN O O
0.5 NN O O
to NN O O
3.5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
switch NN O O
to NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
if NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
ineffective NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
COMB NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
75 NN O O
; NN O O
60.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
10.9 NN O O
PT NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
compliance NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Home NN O I-OUT
Situations NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HSQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Primary NN O O
: NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
random NN O O
effects NN O O
regression NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
COMB NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
MED NN O O
on NN O O
HSQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.006 NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.34 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
HSQ NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
from NN O O
4.31 NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
1.67 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
1.23 NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
1.36 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
COMB NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
4.16 NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
1.47 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
1.68 NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
1.36 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
MED NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
: NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O O
; NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
MED NN O O
, NN O O
COMB NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
d NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.48 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
Stereotypic NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
d NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.23 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Hyperactivity/Noncompliance NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
d NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.55 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Final NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
MED NN O O
was NN O O
2.26 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
0.071 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
1.98 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
COMB NN O O
( NN O O
0.066 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Medication NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
PT NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
maladaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
MED NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
lower NN O O
risperidone NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19864187)

Enhancing NN O O
antiepileptic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
adherence NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Suboptimal NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
antiepileptic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AED NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
is NN O O
commonplace NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
status NN O O
epilepticus NN O O
and NN O O
sudden NN O O
unexplained NN O O
death NN O O
in NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
implementation NN O I-INT
intention NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
involving NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
self-administered NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
linking NN O O
the NN O O
intention NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
taking NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
particular NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
place NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
AED NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
schedule NN O O
adherence NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
81 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
1-month NN O I-PAR
monitoring NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
tablet NN O O
taking NN O O
( NN O O
electronic NN O O
registration NN O O
of NN O O
pill NN O O
bottle NN O O
openings NN O O
, NN O O
Medication NN O O
Event NN O O
Monitoring NN O O
System NN O O
[ NN O O
MEMS NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
showed NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
controls NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
outcomes NN O O
: NN O O
doses NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
93.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
79.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
days NN O O
on NN O O
which NN O O
correct NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
88.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
65.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
doses NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
schedule NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
78.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
55.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
implementation NN O O
intention NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
easy-to-administer NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
promoting NN O O
AED NN O I-INT
adherence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19880586)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
walnut NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
walnut NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
possible NN O O
sequence NN O O
permutations NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
56 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
366 NN O I-INT
kcal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
walnuts/day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
walnuts NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
underwent NN O O
endothelial NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
( NN O O
measured NN O O
as NN O O
flow-mediated NN O O
dilatation NN O O
[ NN O O
FMD NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
8-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
A1C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
walnut-enriched NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
diet NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
after NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
diet NN O O
without NN O O
walnuts NN O O
( NN O O
2.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
walnut-enriched NN O O
diet NN O O
increased NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lowered NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
10.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20.5 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
; NN O O
-9.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.5 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
-7.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
diet NN O O
without NN O O
walnuts NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
A1C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
walnut-enriched NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
diet NN O O
improves NN O O
endothelium-dependent NN O O
vasodilatation NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetic NN O O
individuals NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19904596)

Brief NN O O
Report NN O O
: NN O O
Randomized NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
picture NN O I-INT
exchange NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
on NN O O
highly NN O O
generalized NN O I-OUT
picture NN O I-OUT
exchanges NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
two NN O O
social-communication NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
examined NN O O
far-transfer NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
picture NN O I-OUT
exchange NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
communicate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Picture NN O I-INT
Exchange NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
picture NN O I-INT
symbols NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
assessments NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Post-treatment NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
picture NN O I-OUT
exchanges NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
far-transfer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
assessment NN O O
context NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
PECS NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
interpreted NN O O
as NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
PECS NN O I-INT
curriculum NN O O
can NN O O
successfully NN O O
teach NN O O
a NN O O
generalized NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
showing NN O O
coordinated NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
person NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19910815)

In-season NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
sprint NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
power NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
on NN O O
elite NN O I-PAR
junior NN O I-PAR
soccer NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
in-season NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
sprint NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
power NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
on NN O O
vertical NN O O
countermovement NN O O
jump NN O O
height NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
arms NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sprint NN O O
( NN O O
Sprint-15m NN O O
) NN O O
speed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
agility NN O O
( NN O O
Agility-15m NN O O
) NN O O
speed NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
elite NN O I-PAR
junior NN O I-PAR
soccer NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
soccer NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
18.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
height NN O I-PAR
177 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
71.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6.9 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sum NN O I-PAR
skinfolds NN O I-PAR
48.1 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11.4 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
professional NN O I-PAR
soccer NN O I-PAR
academy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
CONTRAST NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
SPRINT NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
over NN O O
7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
targeting NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
players NN O O
' NN O O
speed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONTRAST NN O O
protocol NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
alternating NN O O
heavy-light NN O O
resistance NN O O
( NN O O
15-50 NN O O
% NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
soccer-specific NN O O
drills NN O O
( NN O O
small-sided NN O O
games NN O O
or NN O O
technical NN O O
skills NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SPRINT NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
used NN O O
line NN O O
30-m NN O O
sprints NN O O
( NN O O
2-4 NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
x NN O O
30 NN O O
m NN O O
with NN O O
180 NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
seconds NN O O
of NN O O
recovery NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evident NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
time NN O O
x NN O O
training NN O O
group NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vertical NN O I-OUT
jump NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Agility-15m NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
time NN O O
x NN O O
training NN O O
group NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
Sprint-15m NN O O
performance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
CONTRAST NN O O
group NN O O
showing NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
scores NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
SPRINT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
7.23 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.18 NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.09 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.20 NN O O
m.s NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
light NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
CONTRAST NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
preferred NN O O
to NN O O
line NN O O
sprint NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
elite NN O I-PAR
soccer NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
soccer-specific NN O I-OUT
sprint NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
15 NN O I-OUT
m NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
competitive NN O O
season NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19958431)

Different NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modalities NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
melasma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Chemical NN O I-INT
peels NN O I-INT
and NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
depigmenting NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
have NN O O
become NN O O
a NN O O
popular NN O O
modality NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
melasma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
trichloroacetic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
peel NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Jessner NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
peel NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hydroquinone NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
kojic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
melasma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fifteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
A NN O O
received NN O O
Jessner NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
peel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
trichloroacetic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
peel NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
received NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
hydroquinone NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
kojic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
using NN O O
Melasma NN O I-OUT
Area NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MASI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
photography NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
MASI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
but NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
MASI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
MASI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
through NN O O
one-way NN O O
anova NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
least NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
LSD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Trichloroacetic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
than NN O O
Jessner NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
as NN O O
peeling NN O O
agent NN O O
and NN O O
hydroquinone NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
kojic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
melasma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19968048)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
sleep NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
fragile NN O O
X NN O O
syndrome NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
fragile NN O O
X NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
autistic NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fragile NN O O
X NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
FXS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
4-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
baseline NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Either NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
then NN O O
alternated NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Sleep NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep-onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep-onset NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
night NN O I-OUT
awakenings NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
Actiwatch NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
sleep NN O O
diaries NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
been NN O O
thoroughly NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
DNA NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
FXS NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Data NN O O
were NN O O
successfully NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15.25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
5.47 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
3.6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Five NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
met NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
for NN O O
FXS NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
for NN O O
FXS NN O O
and NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
for NN O O
fragile NN O O
X NN O O
premutation NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
melatonin NN O I-INT
first NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
conclusions NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
nonparametric NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
technique NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
night NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
on NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
by NN O O
21 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
sleep-onset NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
by NN O O
28 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
sleep-onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
earlier NN O O
by NN O O
42 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
sleep NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
FXS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1996926)

Repeatability NN O O
and NN O O
protocol NN O O
comparability NN O O
of NN O O
presyncopal NN O I-INT
symptom NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
negative NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
exposures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
on NN O O
repeatability NN O O
and NN O O
comparability NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
presyncopal NN O I-INT
symptom-limited NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
negative NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PSL-LBNP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
scarce NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
critical NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
using NN O O
PSL-LBNP NN O I-INT
methods NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
if NN O O
PSL-LBNP NN O O
tolerance NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
were NN O O
repeatable NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
PSL-LBNP NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
each NN O O
test NN O O
occurring NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
PSL-LBNP NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
cumulative NN O O
stress NN O O
index NN O O
; NN O O
maximum NN O O
negative NN O O
pressure NN O O
tolerated NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O O
pressure NN O O
exposure NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
comparability NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
PSL-LBNP NN O I-INT
protocols NN O O
, NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
five NN O O
PSL-LBNP NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
using NN O O
protocols NN O O
that NN O O
varied NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
duration NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
pressure NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
protocols NN O O
had NN O O
1- NN O O
, NN O O
3- NN O O
, NN O O
5- NN O O
, NN O O
7- NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
9-min NN O O
stage NN O O
durations NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
PSL-LBNP NN O I-INT
exposures NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
72 NN O O
h. NN O O
While NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
pattern NN O O
or NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
differing NN O O
protocols NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
proportionally NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stage NN O O
durations NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
1-min NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
negative NN O O
pressure NN O O
tolerated NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
vary NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (20004758)

Optimum NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
for NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high-impact NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Exercise NN O I-INT
can NN O O
increase NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
must NN O O
be NN O O
feasible NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
adopted NN O O
into NN O O
daily NN O O
life NN O O
and NN O O
influence NN O O
potentially NN O O
vulnerable NN O O
skeletal NN O O
sites NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
superolateral NN O O
cortex NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
thinning NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Brief NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
high-impact NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
location NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
accrual NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
thus NN O O
examined NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
weekly NN O O
frequencies NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
on NN O O
femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
whether NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
differed NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
sites NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
high-impact NN O O
, NN O O
unilateral NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Healthy NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
0 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
7 NN O O
days/week NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
incorporated NN O O
50 NN O O
multidirectional NN O O
hops NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
leg NN O O
. NN O O

BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
DXA NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
leg NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
using NN O O
ANCOVA NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
leg NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
BMD NN O O
as NN O O
covariates NN O O
. NN O O

RM-MANOVA NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
differed NN O O
between NN O O
hip NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
61 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
33.6+/-11.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Compliance NN O O
amongst NN O O
exercisers NN O O
was NN O O
86.7+/-10.6 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
ground NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
forces NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
2.5 NN O O
to NN O O
2.8 NN O O
times NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
limb NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
limb NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
BMD NN O O
) NN O O
differed NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
being NN O O
-0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
-1.2 NN O O
to NN O O
0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
-1.0 NN O O
to NN O O
1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
-0.1 NN O O
to NN O O
2.0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
to NN O O
2.8 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
exercising NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
trochanter NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
RM-MANOVA NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
exercise NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
sites NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.439 NN O O
) NN O O
despite NN O O
greatest NN O O
mean NN O O
increases NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Brief NN O O
, NN O O
daily NN O O
hopping NN O O
exercises NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
exercise NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

Brief NN O I-INT
high-impact NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
fragility NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
may NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
frequently NN O O
for NN O O
optimal NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20010618)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
initiating NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage-1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
stage-2 NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
6-week NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
initiating NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O O
valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCTZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
initial NN O O
valsartan NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
648 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage-1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
stage-2 NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age=52.6+/-10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
=161/98 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
V-low NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
V-high NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
valsartan/HCTZ NN O I-INT
160/12.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
V/HCTZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
electively NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
next NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
valsartan/HCTZ NN O I-INT
160/25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
BP NN O I-INT
remained NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
140/90 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
Hg NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
initiated NN O O
with NN O O
V/HCTZ NN O I-INT
required NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
titration NN O I-OUT
steps NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
valsartan NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
vs NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
required NN O O
titration NN O O
by NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
goal NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
< NN O O
140/90 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
V-low NN O O
( NN O O
4.3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
V-high NN O O
( NN O O
3.9 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
greater NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
-27.7+/-13/-15.1+/-8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
V-low NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
-21.2+/-13/-11.4+/-8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
V-high NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
-24.0+/-13/-12.0+/-10 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
and NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
V/HCTZ NN O I-INT
( NN O O
53.1 NN O O
and NN O O
14.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
V-low NN O O
( NN O O
50.5 NN O O
and NN O O
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
V-high NN O O
( NN O O
50.7 NN O O
and NN O O
11.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
initiating NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
low-dose NN O O
HCTZ NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
similar NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
starting NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage-1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stage-2 NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20017819)

Clinical NN O I-OUT
pharmacology NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
behaviour NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vasopressin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
, NN O O
experimental NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

ANIMALS NN O O
Nine NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
beagle NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
beagle NN O I-PAR
cross NN O I-PAR
breeds NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Methadone NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
( NN O O
SC NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Drug NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
Liquid NN O I-INT
Chromatography-Electrospray NN O I-INT
Ionization-Tandem NN O I-INT
Mass NN O I-INT
Spectrometry NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radioimmunoassay NN O I-INT
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Behavioural NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
IV NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
methadone NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
was NN O O
82.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.2 NN O O
ng NN O O
mL NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
terminal NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
9.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.3 NN O O
L NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
27.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.6 NN O O
mL NN O O
minute NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
SC NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.26 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.04 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
methadone NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
23.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.4 NN O O
ng NN O O
mL NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
terminal NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.3 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
79 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vasopressin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
increased NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
hour NN O O
following NN O O
IV NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
behavioural NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
methadone NN O O
were NN O O
decreased NN O O
licking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
swallowing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
whining NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
SC NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
latter NN O O
finding NN O O
is NN O O
notable NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
misinterpreted NN O O
as NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
analgesic NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
AND NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
When NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
SC NN O O
route NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
half-life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
variation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
IV NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
whining NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
sign NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vasopressin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
evaluating NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20023215)

Rituximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
infusional NN O I-INT
EPOCH NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
HIV-associated NN O I-PAR
B-cell NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rituximab NN O O
plus NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bolus NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
immunocompetent NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
B-cell NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NHL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Some NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
rituximab NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
excessive NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HIV-associated NN O O
NHL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
infusional NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
rituximab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
375 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
concurrently NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
infusional NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EPOCH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sequentially NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
completion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
HIV-associated NN O I-INT
NHL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
EPOCH NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
96-hour NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bolus NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
given NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
concurrent NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
35 NN O O
of NN O O
48 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
-85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
sequential NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
29 NN O O
of NN O O
53 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
-68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
met NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
concurrent NN O O
arm NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
CD4 NN O I-OUT
count NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
50/microL NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
infectious NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
concurrent NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
rituximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
infusional NN O I-INT
EPOCH NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
HIV-associated NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20028938)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
lipotoxicity NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
{ NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
} NN O I-OUT
-cell NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ketosis-prone NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Over NN O I-PAR
half NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
ketoacidosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DKA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
discontinue NN O O
insulin NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
go NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
near-normoglycemia NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
subtype NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
as NN O O
ketosis-prone NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
( NN O O
KPDM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
lipotoxicity NN O O
on NN O O
beta-cell NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
KPDM NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
hyperglycemia NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
ketosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ketosis-resistant NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
intralipid NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
ml/h NN O I-INT
for NN O O
48 NN O O
h. NN O O
beta-Cell NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
infusions NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
arginine NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AIR NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
arg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
lipid NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
discontinue NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
11.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.0 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
KPDM NN O O
and NN O O
9.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
ketosis-resistant NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
remission NN O O
, NN O O
KPDM NN O O
and NN O O
ketosis-resistant NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
94 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14 NN O O
vs. NN O O
109 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
A1C NN O O
( NN O O
5.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
AIR NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
arg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
34.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
30 NN O O
vs. NN O O
64 NN O O
+/- NN O O
69 NN O O
microU/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
fourfold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
to NN O O
1.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
48-h NN O O
intralipid NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
AIR NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
arg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
among NN O O
obese NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
KPDM NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ketosis-resistant NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nondiabetic NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Near-normoglycemia NN O O
remission NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
KPDM NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ketosis-resistant NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
remarkable NN O O
recovery NN O O
in NN O O
basal NN O O
and NN O O
stimulated NN O O
insulin NN O O
secretion NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
high NN O O
FFA NN O O
level NN O O
by NN O O
intralipid NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
for NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
beta-cell NN O O
decompensation NN O O
( NN O O
lipotoxicity NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
KPDM NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20084587)

[ NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
Stepping NN O O
Stones NN O O
Triple NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
Interims NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Stepping-Stones-SPC-Multicentric NN O O
Study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Stepping NN O I-INT
Stones NN O I-INT
Triple NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
behavioural NN O O
parenting NN O O
training NN O O
for NN O O
families NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
handicapped NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
has NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
successfully NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
its NN O I-PAR
country NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Within NN O O
a NN O O
multicentric NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O I-PAR
Social NN O I-PAR
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
Centers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SPCs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
clinics/institutions NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-INT
parenting NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
3-7 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
proved NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
concerning NN O O
dysfunctional NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
little NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
acceptance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
stepping NN O O
stones NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2008691)

[ NN O I-INT
Gluten-free NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O O
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
trial NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
postulated NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
connection NN O O
between NN O O
wheat-gluten/milk-casein NN O O
and NN O O
mental NN O O
disorders NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
, NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
and NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
puberty NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
puberty NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
gluten-free NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Three NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
provoked NN O O
with NN O O
gluten/placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
young NN O O
patients NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
gluten-free NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Behaviour NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
registered NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
gluten-free NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analogue NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Real NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
register NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
behaviour NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
connection NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
gluten NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
typical NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
contrary NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
gluten-free NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
another NN O O
negative NN O O
factor NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
isolation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
highly NN O I-PAR
socially NN O I-PAR
handicapped NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20109864)

Catheter NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
stable NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
tachycardia NN O I-INT
before NN O I-PAR
defibrillator NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VTACH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachycardia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
implantable NN O I-INT
cardioverter NN O I-INT
defibrillator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
sudden NN O O
cardiac NN O O
death NN O O
and NN O O
thereby NN O O
reduce NN O O
total NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
ICD NN O O
shocks NN O O
are NN O O
painful NN O O
and NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
complete NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
sudden NN O O
cardiac NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
catheter NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
before NN O O
implantation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cardioverter NN O O
defibrillator NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
Ventricular NN O I-PAR
Tachycardia NN O I-PAR
Ablation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Coronary NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VTACH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undertaken NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-80 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
enrolment NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
VT NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
left-ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LVEF NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or=50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
1:1 NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ICD NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n=54 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ICD NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n=56 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
by NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
randomly NN O O
permuted NN O O
blocks NN O O
and NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
centre NN O O
and NN O O
LVEF NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
or=30 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
> NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00919373 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
107 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ITT NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
n=52 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=55 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
withdrew NN O O
consent NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
randomisation NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
ablation NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
excluded NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
violaton NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
22.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
9.0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
VF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ablation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
median NN O O
18.6 NN O O
months NN O O
[ NN O O
lower NN O O
quartile NN O O
2.4 NN O O
, NN O O
upper NN O O
quartile NN O O
not NN O O
determinable NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5.9 NN O O
months NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
0.8-26.7 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
estimates NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
free NN O O
from NN O O
VT NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
VF NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ablation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.61 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.37-0.99 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Complications NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ablation NN O O
procedure NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
ablation NN O O
. NN O O

15 NN O O
device-related NN O O
complications NN O O
requiring NN O O
surgical NN O O
intervention NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
four NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
nine NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
died NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERPRETATION NN O O
Prophylactic NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
before NN O O
defibrillator NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
prolong NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
VT NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
VT NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
LVEF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prophylactic NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
should NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
before NN O O
implantation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cardioverter NN O I-INT
defibrillator NN O I-INT
in NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
St NN O O
Jude NN O O
Medical NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20113305)

Hunter NN O O
DBT NN O O
project NN O O
: NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
dialectical NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
personality NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Deliberate NN O O
self-harm NN O O
( NN O O
DSH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
general NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
and NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
personality NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dialectical NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
DSH NN O O
and NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
73 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
BPD NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
with NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analyses NN O O
and NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
DBT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
was NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
DBT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAU+WL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
outcomes NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
proportions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
DSH NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
DSH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
DSH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
DSH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hospital NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Disability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bed NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Psychological NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Environmental NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
DBT NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
DBT NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
non-significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
DSH NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
TAU+WL NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
due NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
expected NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
DBT NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
benefits NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
improved NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
useful NN O O
result NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
in NN O O
keeping NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
theoretical NN O O
constructs NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
DBT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20122038)

Enhancing NN O O
caregiver NN O O
health NN O O
: NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
resources NN O O
for NN O O
enhancing NN O O
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
caregiver NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
post-Resources NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Enhancing NN O I-INT
Alzheimer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Caregiver NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
REACH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
caregiver NN O O
( NN O O
CG NN O O
) NN O O
self-reported NN O O
health NN O O
, NN O O
burden NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bother NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multisite NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
CG NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
recipient NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
homes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
U.S. NN O I-PAR
cities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ninety-five NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
CG NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CR NN O I-PAR
dyads NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
169 NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
166 NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
CGs NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
REACH NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
no-treatment NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
individual NN O O
risk NN O O
profiles NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
REACH NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
nine NN O O
in-home NN O I-INT
and NN O O
three NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
over NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O O
brief NN O O
check-in NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
during NN O O
this NN O O
6-month NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CG NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
CG NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bother NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
CGs NN O O
reported NN O O
better NN O O
self-rated NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
burden NN O O
and NN O O
bother NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
caregiving NN O O
role NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
CGs NN O O
not NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
mediate NN O O
these NN O O
relationships NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
racial NN O O
and NN O O
ethnic NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
existed NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
frustration NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
caregiving NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CG-rated NN O I-OUT
bother NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
CR NN O O
's NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
and NN O O
instrumental NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
posttest NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
vary NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
race NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
structured NN O O
, NN O O
multicomponent NN O O
skills NN O O
training NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
targeted NN O O
CG NN O O
self-care NN O O
behaviors NN O O
as NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
target NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
burden NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
bother NN O O
in NN O O
racially NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ethnically NN O I-PAR
diverse NN O I-PAR
CGs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20124059)

Minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
traditional NN O O
transgluteal NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
gait NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Minimally NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
purported NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
and NN O O
faster NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O O
soft-tissue NN O O
damage NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
approach NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
standard NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
kinematics NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
with NN O O
gait NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
electromyography NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
Watson-Jones NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
transgluteal NN O I-INT
Hardinge NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
cementless NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
, NN O O
inserted NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
standard NN O O
instruments NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
operations NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
, NN O O
experienced NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
three-dimensional NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
dynamic NN O O
electromyograms NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
: NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
ten NN O O
days NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
twelve NN O O
weeks NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Temporospatial NN O O
and NN O O
joint-kinematic NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
temporospatial NN O O
variables NN O O
of NN O O
velocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cadence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
step NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stride NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
tested NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
operatively NN O O
treated NN O O
hip NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O O
decrease NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
ten-day NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mainly NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
reduced NN O O
hip NN O O
extension NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
compensatory NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pelvic NN O I-OUT
tilt NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
Trendelenburg NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
ten NN O O
days NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
; NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
disappeared NN O O
completely NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
twelve-week NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
With NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
gait NN O O
kinematics NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
Watson-Jones NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
managed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-PAR
transgluteal NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20124218)

Oral NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
veno-occlusive NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
CCG-1952 NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
1952 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CCG-1952 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
substitution NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
intrathecal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ITT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
intrathecal NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IT-MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2027 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
MP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1010 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
TG NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1017 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
IT-MTX NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1018 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
ITT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
thiopurine NN O O
comparison NN O O
are NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
estimated NN O O
7-year NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
TG NN O O
was NN O O
84.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
MP NN O O
was NN O O
79.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.004 NN O O
log NN O O
rank NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
91.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
91.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.6 NN O O
log NN O O
rank NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TG NN O O
starting NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
60 NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
recognition NN O O
of NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
veno-occlusive NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VOD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
257 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
TG NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
developed NN O O
VOD NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
disproportionate NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
MP NN O O
. NN O O

Once NN O O
portal NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
on NN O O
TG NN O O
were NN O O
changed NN O O
to NN O O
MP NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
randomization NN O O
to NN O O
TG NN O O
over NN O O
MP NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
EFS NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
evident NN O O
primarily NN O O
in NN O O
boys NN O O
who NN O O
began NN O O
TG NN O O
at NN O O
60 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
hazard NN O O
rate NN O O
[ NN O O
RHR NN O O
] NN O O
0.65 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
toxicities NN O O
of NN O O
TG NN O O
preclude NN O O
its NN O O
protracted NN O O
use NN O O
as NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
as NN O O
NCT00002744 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20145986)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
caregiver NN O I-INT
mediated NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
engagement NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
greater NN O O
joint NN O O
engagement NN O O
between NN O O
caregivers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O I-INT
caregiver-mediated NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
with NN O O
follow-up NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
caregivers NN O O
and NN O O
toddlers NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
IT NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
made NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
targeted NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
IT NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
with NN O O
medium NN O O
to NN O O
large NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
diversity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
skills NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
are NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
data NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
can NN O O
have NN O O
important NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
core NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
# NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00065910 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2015149)

Optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
required NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
310 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
lignocaine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lignocaine NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lignocaine NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lignocaine NN O I-INT
0.4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
lignocaine NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20152225)

Biventricular NN O O
pacing NN O O
improves NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prevents NN O O
further NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
atrioventricular NN O I-PAR
node NN O I-PAR
ablation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
biventricular NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BiV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
intraventricular NN O I-PAR
conduction NN O I-PAR
delay NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
post-atrioventricular NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
node NN O I-PAR
ablation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
AV NN O O
Node NN O O
Ablation NN O O
with NN O O
CLS NN O O
and NN O O
CRT NN O O
Pacing NN O O
Therapies NN O O
for NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
AF NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
AVAIL NN O O
CLS/CRT NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
BiV NN O O
pacing NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
AF NN O O
after NN O O
AV NN O O
node NN O O
ablation NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
structure NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
additional NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
Closed NN O O
Loop NN O O
Stimulation NN O O
( NN O O
CLS NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
BIOTRONIK NN O O
, NN O O
Berlin NN O O
, NN O O
Germany NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
AV NN O I-PAR
node NN O I-PAR
ablation NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
2:2:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
BiV NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CLS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
BiV NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
accelerometer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
right NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Echocardiography NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
paired NN O O
data NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
108 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
RV NN O O
pacing NN O O
contributed NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
end-systolic NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
BiV NN O O
pacing NN O O
. NN O O

Ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
insignificantly NN O O
with NN O O
RV NN O O
pacing NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
with NN O O
BiV NN O O
pacing NN O O
. NN O O

Interventricular NN O I-OUT
dyssynchrony NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
BiV NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
RV NN O O
pacing NN O O
. NN O O

Closed NN O O
Loop NN O O
Stimulation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
additional NN O O
echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
wider NN O O
with NN O O
CLS NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
New NN O I-OUT
York NN O I-OUT
Heart NN O I-OUT
Association NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
RV NN O O
pacing NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
worsening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
contractility NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
BiV NN O O
pacing NN O O
post-AV NN O O
node NN O O
ablation NN O O
for NN O O
refractory NN O O
AF NN O O
. NN O O

Closed NN O O
Loop NN O O
Stimulation NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
additional NN O O
structural NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
wider NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20157845)

Can NN O O
incentives NN O I-INT
undermine NN O O
intrinsic NN O I-OUT
motivation NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
epidemiologic NN O O
surveys NN O O
? NN O O
Response NN O O
rates NN O O
to NN O O
surveys NN O O
are NN O O
decreasing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
lottery NN O I-INT
tickets NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
incentives NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
epidemiologic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
self-administered NN O I-PAR
questionnaire NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
sent NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
municipality NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Stockholm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
addressing NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
stratified NN O O
random NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
450 NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O I-INT
incentive NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
incentive NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
promised NN O I-INT
incentive NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
lottery NN O I-INT
ticket NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
upon NN O I-INT
reply NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
c NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
promised NN O I-INT
incentive NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
lottery NN O I-INT
ticket NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
upon NN O I-INT
reply NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
lottery NN O I-INT
ticket NN O I-INT
upon NN O I-INT
reply NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
65.3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no NN O I-INT
incentive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
69.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lowest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
lottery NN O I-INT
ticket NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
62.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
response NN O O
curves NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
no NN O O
incentive NN O O
group NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
response NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
incentive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
lottery NN O I-INT
tickets NN O I-INT
as NN O O
incentives NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
mail NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
parents NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
valuable NN O O
or NN O O
even NN O O
harmful NN O O
. NN O O

Incentives NN O I-INT
may NN O O
undermine NN O O
motivation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
motivation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
respondents NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
already NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20189663)

Differential NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
CHF NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
ACE NN O O
genotype NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Angiotensin NN O O
Converting NN O O
Enzyme NN O O
( NN O O
ACE NN O O
) NN O O
gene NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
various NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
training NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
partly NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ACE NN O O
genotype NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ACE NN O O
genotype NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
intensity NN O O
circuit NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
ACE NN O O
genotype NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
11weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
Functional NN O I-PAR
Class=2.3?0.5 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
28?7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
64?12years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
32:5 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=19 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
or NN O O
inactive NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=18 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
V?O NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2peak NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
ACE NN O I-OUT
genotype NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
standard NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
homozygous NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
I NN O O
allele NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
V?O NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2peak NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0.003 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
homozygous NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
D NN O O
allele NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
D NN O O
allele NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
non-exercising NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
, NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
peak NN O O
power NN O O
increases NN O O
( NN O O
ID NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
DD NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
homozygous NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
I NN O O
allele NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
genotype-dependent NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
V?O NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2peak NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
ACE NN O O
genotype NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O O
tolerance NN O O
in NN O O
CHF NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
also NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20201949)

Final NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
UKLG NN O O
LY02 NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
6-8 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
with NN O O
3 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O I-INT
CHOP NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
BEAM NN O I-INT
autograft NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
NHL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
trial NN O O
involved NN O O
457 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
intensification NN O O
with NN O O
autologous NN O O
transplantation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NHL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
CHOP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Randomization NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
with NN O O
223 NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
continuing NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
234 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
BEAM NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
carmustine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cytarabine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
autograft NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
19 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
had NN O O
responded NN O O
with NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
CR NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
therapy NN O O
arm NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
CR NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
arms NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
continuing NN O O
CHOP NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
autograft NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
differences NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
attained NN O O
CR NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
relapsed NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
survivors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
autograft NN O O
recipients NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
continuing NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
survival NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
autograft NN O O
in NN O O
first NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20216293)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
photocoagulation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
diabetic NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
using NN O O
532-nm NN O O
standard NN O O
laser NN O O
versus NN O O
multispot NN O O
pattern NN O O
scan NN O O
laser NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
collateral NN O O
damage NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
convenience NN O O
of NN O O
panretinal NN O O
photocoagulation NN O O
for NN O O
proliferative NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
nonproliferative NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
532-nm NN O O
solid-state NN O I-INT
green NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GLX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
a NN O O
multispot NN O I-INT
532-nm NN O I-INT
pattern NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PASCAL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bilaterally NN O I-PAR
symmetrical NN O I-PAR
proliferative NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
nonproliferative NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
patient NN O O
underwent NN O O
panretinal NN O O
photocoagulation NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
GLX NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
with NN O O
PASCAL NN O I-INT
, NN O O
two NN O O
sittings NN O O
per NN O O
eye NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O O
3 NN O O
burns NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
200-mum NN O O
spot NN O O
size NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
modalities NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fluence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
spot NN O I-OUT
spread NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
infrared NN O O
images NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
retinal NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Pattern NN O O
scan NN O O
laser NN O O
and NN O O
GLX NN O O
required NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
fluence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
40.33 NN O O
vs NN O O
191 NN O O
J/cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Average NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
sitting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.43 NN O O
minutes NN O O
with NN O O
PASCAL NN O O
and NN O O
4.53 NN O O
minutes NN O O
with NN O O
GLX NN O O
. NN O O

Average NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
GLX NN O O
was NN O O
4.6 NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
PASCAL NN O O
was NN O O
0.33 NN O O
. NN O O

Heidelberg NN O O
retinal NN O O
angiography NN O O
images NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
spot NN O I-OUT
spread NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
being NN O O
430 NN O O
versus NN O O
310 NN O O
microm NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
GLX NN O O
and NN O O
PASCAL NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
eyes NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
PASCAL NN O O
showed NN O O
higher NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
15 NN O O
degrees NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
degrees NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
zones NN O O
( NN O O
25.08 NN O O
and NN O O
22.08 NN O O
dB NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
GLX NN O O
( NN O O
23.16 NN O O
and NN O O
17.14 NN O O
dB NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Pattern NN O O
scan NN O O
laser NN O O
showed NN O O
lesser NN O O
collateral NN O O
damage NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
regression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
GLX NN O O
. NN O O

Pattern NN O O
scan NN O O
laser NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
time NN O O
consuming NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
painful NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
GLX NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20229169)

PSK NN O I-INT
may NN O O
suppress NN O O
CD57 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
T NN O O
cells NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
recent NN O O
report NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
immunochemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
protein-bound NN O I-INT
polysaccharide NN O I-INT
K NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PSK NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tegafur/uracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UFT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
improves NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
UFT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PSK NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
supposed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
survival NN O O
through NN O O
immunological NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
cytokines NN O O
, NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
Th1/Th2 NN O O
balance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O O
molecules NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
PSK NN O I-INT
influences NN O O
immunological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
such NN O O
as NN O O
Th1 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IFN-gamma-positive NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Th2 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-4-positive NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Th1/Th2 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NKT NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CD56 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD57 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
3 NN O O
g NN O O
PSK NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
UFT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PSK NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
UFT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
orally NN O O
each NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
following NN O O
their NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
62.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PSK NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
Th1 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Th2 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Th1/Th2 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD56 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD57 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
CD25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
PSK NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
CD57 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PSK NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0486 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
proportion NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
CD57 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
T NN O O
cells NN O O
showed NN O O
worse NN O O
survival NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
CD57 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
T NN O O
cells NN O O
( NN O O
3-year NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
25.0 NN O O
and NN O O
45.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
our NN O O
previous NN O O
report NN O O
that NN O O
high NN O O
CD57 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
prognosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
advanced NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
PSK NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
UFT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CD57-high NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
great NN O O
as NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
CD57-low NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
66.7 NN O O
and NN O O
51.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
PSK NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
partly NN O O
by NN O O
inhibiting NN O O
CD57 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
T NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
proven NN O O
poor NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20237484)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O O
age NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
of NN O O
prematurity NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
during NN O O
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prematurity NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ROP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
screening NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
controversial NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
proparacaine NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
Premature NN O I-OUT
Infant NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Profile NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PIPP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
ROP NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
masked NN O O
cross-over NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
neonatal NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
routine NN O I-PAR
ROP NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
exams NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O I-OUT
PIPP NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
post-examination NN O I-OUT
PIPP NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
proparacaine NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
) NN O O
first NN O O
ROP NN O O
screening NN O O
vs NN O O
second NN O O
ROP NN O O
screening NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Wilcoxon NN O O
signed-ranks NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
pair NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULT NN O I-PAR
Forty NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
examinations NN O O
was NN O O
33.3 NN O O
and NN O O
35.3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Proparacaine NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
lowered NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
PIPP NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

Second NN O O
examinations NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
PIPP NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
examination NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
drop NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Proparacaine NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
offer NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
apparently NN O O
short NN O O
lived NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
PIPP NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
second NN O O
ROP NN O O
examinations NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
infants NN O O
of NN O O
older NN O O
GA NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
tolerate NN O O
ROP NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
recommend NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
proparacaine NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
, NN O O
immediate NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
ROP NN O I-OUT
screening NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lesser NN O O
GA NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20304413)

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
for NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
restricted NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
on NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
diets NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
g/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
HPLC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
calories NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
13 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
close NN O O
monitoring NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
safety NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O O
contact NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
until NN O O
follow-up NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
weeks NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
Z-score NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
sex NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
BMI-Z NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
13 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Forty-six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
HPLC NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
initiated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
approximately NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
BMI-Z NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
HPLC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
maintained NN O O
significant NN O O
BMI-Z NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
; NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Loss NN O O
of NN O O
lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
spared NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HPLC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
HPLC NN O I-INT
diet NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
medically NN O O
supervised NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20406576)

The NN O O
ScanBrit NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
gluten- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
casein-free NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
gluten- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
casein-free NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
two-stage NN O O
, NN O O
24-month NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
incorporating NN O O
an NN O O
adaptive NN O O
'catch-up NN O O
' NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Stage NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
saw NN O O
72 NN O I-PAR
Danish NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
non-diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
randomisation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Gilliam NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
assess NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Adaptive NN O I-OUT
Behaviour NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VABS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ascertain NN O I-OUT
developmental NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Attention-Deficit NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
Disorder NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD-IV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
determine NN O I-OUT
inattention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
available NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
this NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
to NN O O
mean NN O O
diet NN O O
group NN O O
scores NN O O
( NN O O
time*treatment NN O O
interaction NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
sub-domains NN O O
of NN O O
ADOS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GARS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ADHD-IV NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Surpassing NN O O
of NN O O
predefined NN O O
statistical NN O O
thresholds NN O O
as NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
sanctioned NN O O
the NN O O
re-assignment NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
active NN O O
dietary NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Stage NN O O
2 NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
18 NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
scenario NN O O
analysis NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
inter- NN O O
and NN O O
intra-group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
showed NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
sustained NN O O
clinical NN O O
group NN O O
improvements NN O O
although NN O O
possibly NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
plateau NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
may NN O O
positively NN O O
affect NN O O
developmental NN O O
outcome NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
investigation NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
are NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
disqualify NN O O
potential NN O O
effects NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
intervention NN O O
outside NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
ascertain NN O O
potential NN O O
best- NN O O
and NN O O
non-responders NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
ClincialTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00614198 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20431081)

Stroke NN O O
team NN O O
remote NN O O
evaluation NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
digital NN O O
observation NN O O
camera NN O O
in NN O O
Arizona NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
initial NN O O
mayo NN O O
clinic NN O O
experience NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Telemedicine NN O O
techniques NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
rural-metropolitan NN O I-PAR
disparity NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
stroke NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Stroke NN O O
Team NN O O
Remote NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
Using NN O O
a NN O O
Digital NN O O
Observation NN O O
Camera NN O O
( NN O O
STRokE NN O O
DOC NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
accurate NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
for NN O O
telemedicine NN O I-INT
consultations NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
telephone-only NN O I-INT
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
California-based NN O O
research NN O O
network NN O O
facilitated NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
technical NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
favorable NN O O
assessment NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
STRokE NN O O
DOC NN O O
Arizona NN O O
TIME NN O O
( NN O O
The NN O O
Initial NN O O
Mayo NN O O
Clinic NN O O
Experience NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
establishing NN O O
, NN O O
de NN O O
novo NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
single-hub NN O O
, NN O O
multirural NN O O
spoke NN O O
hospital NN O O
telestroke NN O O
research NN O O
network NN O O
across NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
geographical NN O O
area NN O O
in NN O O
Arizona NN O O
by NN O O
replicating NN O O
the NN O O
STRokE NN O O
DOC NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Methods NN O O
included NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
single-hub NN O O
, NN O O
2-spoke NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
2-way NN O O
, NN O O
site-independent NN O O
, NN O O
audiovisual NN O I-INT
telemedicine NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
remote NN O I-INT
examination NN O I-INT
of NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
telephone NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
assess NN O I-INT
eligibility NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-INT
thrombolysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
give NN O I-OUT
thrombolysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
correct NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thrombolytic NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
90-day NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intracerebral NN O I-OUT
hemorrhages NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
technical NN O I-OUT
observations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
27 NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
National NN O O
Institutes NN O O
of NN O O
Health NN O O
Stroke NN O O
Scale NN O O
score NN O O
at NN O O
presentation NN O O
was NN O O
7.3 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
6.2 NN O O
) NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
consultations NN O O
were NN O O
aborted NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
technical NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
prevalent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
correct NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
established NN O O
in NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
consultations NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
modalities NN O O
, NN O O
telephone NN O O
( NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
correct NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
correct NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
performed NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

Intravenous NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
and NN O O
telephone NN O O
consultations NN O O
. NN O O

Good NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
90 NN O O
days NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
telephone NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intracerebral NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
telephone NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
to NN O O
extend NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
STRokE NN O O
DOC NN O O
trial NN O O
protocol NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
state NN O O
and NN O O
establish NN O O
an NN O O
operational NN O O
single-hub NN O O
, NN O O
multispoke NN O O
rural NN O O
hospital NN O O
telestroke NN O O
research NN O O
network NN O O
in NN O O
Arizona NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
sufficient NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
consultative NN O O
modes NN O O
: NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
and NN O O
telephone-only NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
by NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
or NN O O
telephone NN O O
consultative NN O O
modalities NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
appropriate NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
decisions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
high NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
thrombolysis NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improved NN O O
data NN O I-OUT
collection NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
low NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intracerebral NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
equally NN O O
favorable NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
learning NN O O
curve NN O O
was NN O O
steep NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
hub NN O O
and NN O O
spoke NN O O
personnel NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
telestroke NN O O
network NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
frequent NN O O
technical NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
highly NN O O
organized NN O O
and NN O O
structured NN O O
stroke NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
networks NN O O
for NN O O
extending NN O O
expert NN O O
stroke NN O O
care NN O O
into NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
remote NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
lacking NN O I-PAR
sufficient NN O I-PAR
neurological NN O I-PAR
expertise NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20470677)

FloSeal NN O I-INT
hemostatic NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
in NN O O
persistent NN O I-PAR
epistaxis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Although NN O O
most NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
epistaxis NN O O
are NN O O
managed NN O O
conservatively NN O O
, NN O O
occasionally NN O O
they NN O O
can NN O O
progress NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
requiring NN O O
more NN O O
involved NN O O
management NN O O
or NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Endoscopic NN O O
ligation NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
institutional NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
fail NN O O
conservative NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
surgical NN O O
ligation NN O O
requires NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
resources NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
withstand NN O O
an NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
's NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
FloSeal NN O I-INT
hemostatic NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Baxter NN O O
Healthcare NN O O
Corporation NN O O
, NN O O
Hayward NN O O
, NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
epistaxis NN O O
refractory NN O O
to NN O O
nasal NN O O
packing NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
epistaxis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
persisted NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
adequate NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
packing NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
otolaryngology-head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
team NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Once NN O O
enrolled NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O O
FloSeal NN O I-INT
hemostatic NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
to NN O O
abort NN O O
the NN O O
epistaxis NN O O
. NN O O

Should NN O O
this NN O O
fail NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
then NN O O
proceed NN O O
with NN O O
surgical NN O O
clipping NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Our NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
success NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
epistaxis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
otherwise NN O O
been NN O O
taken NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
theatre NN O O
, NN O O
avoiding NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
adequately NN O O
managed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
hemostatic NN O O
matrix NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
discharged NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
timeframe NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
managment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
tool NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
otolaryngologist NN O O
's NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O I-PAR
epistaxis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Given NN O O
the NN O O
ease NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
morbidity NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
, NN O O
FloSeal NN O I-INT
hemostatic NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
could NN O O
change NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
in NN O O
managing NN O O
this NN O O
common NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20484002)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
TeachTown NN O O
: NN O O
Basics NN O I-INT
computer-assisted NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
Intensive NN O O
Comprehensive NN O O
Autism NN O O
Program NN O O
in NN O O
Los NN O O
Angeles NN O O
Unified NN O O
School NN O O
District NN O O
. NN O O

Computer NN O I-INT
Assisted NN O I-INT
Instruction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
increased NN O O
popularity NN O O
recently NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
many NN O O
studies NN O O
showing NN O O
promise NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
between-subject NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
CAI NN O I-INT
with NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
47 NN O I-PAR
preschool NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
K-1 NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
classrooms NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Los NN O I-PAR
Angeles NN O I-PAR
Unified NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
District NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TeachTown NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Basics NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
CAI NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
includes NN O I-INT
supplementary NN O I-INT
off-computer NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
approximately NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
computer NN O I-INT
and NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
supplementary NN O I-INT
TeachTown NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Basics NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
students NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TeachTown NN O O
: NN O O
Basics NN O O
students NN O O
showed NN O O
more NN O O
improvement NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
students NN O O
who NN O O
used NN O O
TeachTown NN O O
: NN O O
Basics NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
progress NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
software NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
those NN O O
students NN O O
who NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
time NN O O
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
software NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
not NN O O
conclusive NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
offer NN O O
possibilities NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
CAI NN O I-INT
for NN O O
remediating NN O O
many NN O O
deficits NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
needs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
CAI NN O I-INT
may NN O O
offer NN O O
solutions NN O O
to NN O O
schools NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
with NN O O
insufficient NN O O
funds NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
expensive NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20484620)

Clonidine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
matures NN O O
rapidly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
postnatal NN O O
period NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
newborns NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neonatal NN O I-PAR
abstinence NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
population NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PK NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
in NN O O
newborns NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neonatal NN O I-PAR
abstinence NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
covariates NN O O
affecting NN O O
its NN O O
PK NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
clonidine NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
newborns NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
postnatal NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
PNA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
2.1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
3.9 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
multiple NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
population NN O O
PK NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clonidine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
developed NN O O
by NN O O
NONMEM NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
covariates NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
nonparametric NN O O
bootstraps NN O O
( NN O O
2000 NN O O
replicates NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
simulation NN O O
experiments NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
1-compartment NN O O
open NN O O
linear NN O O
PK NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
chosen NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clonidine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PNA NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significant NN O O
covariates NN O O
for NN O O
apparent NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CL/F NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
CL/F NN O O
( NN O O
L/h NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
15.2 NN O O
? NN O O
[ NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
/70 NN O O
] NN O O
( NN O O
0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
? NN O O
[ NN O O
PNA NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
0.441 NN O O
) NN O O
/ NN O O
( NN O O
4.06 NN O O
( NN O O
0.441 NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O O
PNA NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
0.441 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CL/F NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clonidine NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
rapidly NN O O
with NN O O
PNA NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
after NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
. NN O O

Any NN O O
optimal NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
term NN O O
neonates NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
infant NN O O
's NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.5 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
starting NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
simulation NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20500493)

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
de NN O O
novo NN O O
or NN O O
early NN O O
everolimus NN O I-INT
with NN O O
low NN O O
cyclosporine NN O O
in NN O O
deceased-donor NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
delayed NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
12-month NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Immediate NN O O
or NN O O
early NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
proliferation NN O O
signal NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
PSI NN O O
) NN O O
/mammalian NN O O
target NN O O
of NN O O
rapamycin NN O O
( NN O O
mTOR NN O O
) NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
therapy NN O O
can NN O O
avoid NN O O
high NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
calcineurin NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
but NN O O
concerns NN O O
exist NN O O
relating NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DGF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
impaired NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
mTOR NN O O
sirolimus NN O O
. NN O O

CALLISTO NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Deceased-donor NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
protocol-specified NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
DGF NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
start NN O O
everolimus NN O I-INT
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
immediate NN O I-INT
everolimus NN O I-INT
, NN O O
IE NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
65 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
delayed NN O I-INT
everolimus NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
DE NN O I-INT
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
74 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Incidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
biopsy-proven NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BPAR NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DGF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
transplant NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
64.6 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
and NN O O
66.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IE NN O O
and NN O O
DE NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.860 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
BPAR NN O O
was NN O O
20.1 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
estimated NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IE NN O O
and NN O O
DE NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DGF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
led NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
IE NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
26.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
DE NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
37.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
everolimus NN O O
immediately NN O O
or NN O O
early NN O O
posttransplant NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
DGF-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O I-OUT
seems NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
delaying NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
everolimus NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20587582)

Abnormal NN O O
cardiac NN O O
contractility NN O O
in NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
exogenous NN O I-INT
subclinical NN O I-INT
hyperthyroid NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
by NN O O
two-dimensional NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
speckle NN O O
tracking NN O O
imaging NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Subclinical NN O O
hyperthyroidism NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Recent NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
imaging NN O O
have NN O O
allowed NN O O
sophisticated NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
myocardial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
exogenous NN O I-INT
subclinical NN O I-INT
hyperthyroidism NN O I-INT
using NN O O
two-dimensional NN O I-INT
speckle NN O I-INT
tracking NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2D-STE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
duration NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Totally NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
TSH-suppressive NN O I-PAR
levothyroxine NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
l-T NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
substitution NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
persistent NN O O
TSH-suppressive NN O I-INT
l-T NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
substitution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
low-TSH NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
restoration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
euthyroidism NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Additionally NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
euthyroid NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
( NN O O
PROPOSAL NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
impaired NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
2D-STE NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
subclinical NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
impaired NN O I-OUT
circumferential NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
longitudinal NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
isovolumic NN O O
relaxation NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
euthyroidism NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
2D-STE NN O O
strain NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Prolonged NN O I-INT
subclinical NN O I-INT
hyperthyroidism NN O I-INT
leads NN O O
to NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
reversible NN O O
after NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
euthyroidism NN O O
. NN O O

2D-STE NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
sensitive NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
subtle NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
LV NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20608027)

[ NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
natriuretic NN O I-INT
peptide NN O I-INT
indices NN O O
and NN O O
oxidative NN O I-INT
stress NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
have NN O O
studied NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
natriuretic NN O I-INT
peptide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
oxidative NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-INT
male NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
postinfarction NN O I-INT
cardiosclerosis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PICS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
have NN O I-INT
developed NN O I-INT
CHF NN O I-INT
have NN O I-INT
been NN O I-INT
observed NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
varied NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
till NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
that NN O O
CHF NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
had NN O O
worsening NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
together NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
through NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
NO NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NADPH NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
diaphorase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
eNOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
nitrite NN O I-OUT
reductase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
iNOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peroxinitrite NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ONOO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
correlative NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
plazma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reliable NN O O
connection NN O O
between NN O O
considerable NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NT-pro NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
CHF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
demands NN O O
necessity NN O O
of NN O O
correction NN O O
of NN O O
observed NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20647058)

Rationale NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
an NN O O
evidence-based NN O I-INT
prescription NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
label NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
actual NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Medication NN O O
errors NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
concern NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
poor NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
labels NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
root NN O O
cause NN O O
. NN O O

Research NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
labels NN O O
are NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
quality NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
patient-centered NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
real-world NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
improved NN O O
medication NN O O
labels NN O O
can NN O O
affect NN O O
appropriate NN O O
medication NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
adherence NN O O
or NN O O
health NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
We NN O O
developed NN O O
an NN O O
evidence-based NN O I-INT
prescription NN O I-INT
label NN O I-INT
that NN O O
addresses NN O O
both NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
format NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
enhanced NN O I-INT
label NN O I-INT
includes NN O O
a NN O O
universal NN O O
medication NN O O
schedule NN O O
( NN O O
UMS NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
standardizes NN O O
the NN O O
directions NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
incorporating NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
standard NN O O
time NN O O
periods NN O O
for NN O O
administration NN O O
( NN O O
morning NN O O
, NN O O
noon NN O O
, NN O O
evening NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bedtime NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
numeric NN O O
vs. NN O O
alpha NN O O
characters NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
'carriage NN O O
returns NN O O
' NN O O
to NN O O
separate NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
graphic NN O O
aid NN O O
to NN O O
visually NN O O
depict NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
frequency NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
will NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
providing NN O O
this NN O O
label NN O I-INT
to NN O O
randomly NN O I-PAR
sampled NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mobile NN O I-PAR
vans NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
federally NN O I-PAR
qualified NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FQHCs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Northern NN O I-PAR
Virginia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
will NN O O
recruit NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
these NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
medications NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
labels NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
prescriptions NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
labels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
correctly NN O I-OUT
demonstrate NN O I-OUT
dosing NN O I-OUT
instructions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Other NN O O
outcomes NN O O
include NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prescription NN O O
label NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
understanding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
successful NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
implemented NN O O
broadly NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
appropriate NN O O
medication NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
standards NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
labels NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20654755)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
combined NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
composition NN O O
and NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
on NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
androgen NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
contraceptive NN O I-INT
pills NN O I-INT
with NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
components NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
female NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
previous NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
pills NN O O
containing NN O O
ethynylestradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mcg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LNG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mcg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mcg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
LNG NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mcg NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

Sexual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
[ NN O O
Female NN O O
Sexual NN O O
Function NN O O
Index NN O O
( NN O O
FSFI NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Hormone NN O I-OUT
assays NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
sixth NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
EE30/LNG150 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
EE20/LNG100 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
EE30/LNG150 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
presented NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
decreases NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

EE20/LNG100 NN O I-INT
presented NN O O
reductions NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
without NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FSFI NN O I-OUT
desire NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
EE20/LNG100 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
EE30/LNG150 NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
plasma NN O O
androgen NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
sexual NN O O
desire NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
sexual NN O O
desire NN O O
score NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
EE20/LNG100 NN O I-INT
formulation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20661580)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O O
aromatase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
letrozole NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
triptorelin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
case NN O O
control NN O O
on NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sign NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
endometriosis NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
aromatase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
letrozole NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
triptorelin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
case NN O O
control NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
144 NN O I-PAR
infertile NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
reproductive NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
letrozole NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
prescribed NN O I-PAR
triptorelin NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
their NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
regular NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
23.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
27.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
28.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
show NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endometriosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
5.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endometriosis NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
comparable NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20675425)

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O O
sodium NN O O
phosphosilicate NN O O
desensitizer NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
dentin NN O I-PAR
hypersensitivity NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
NovaMin NN O O
( NN O O
NovaMin NN O O
Technology NN O O
, NN O O
Alachua NN O O
, NN O O
Fla. NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
introduced NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
dental NN O O
market NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
desensitizer NN O O
in NN O O
December NN O O
2004 NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
' NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
researchers NN O O
yet NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
percent NN O O
NovaMin NN O O
powder NN O O
with NN O O
NovaMin-containing NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
dentin NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
NovaMin-containing NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
only NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
desensitizing NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
containing NN O O
potassium NN O O
nitrate NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
divided NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
NovaMin NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
NovaMin-containing NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
NovaMin-containing NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
authors NN O O
used NN O O
tactile NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
evaluate NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
pain NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
powder NN O O
application NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
powder NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
analyzed NN O O
data NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
Friedman NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Wilcoxon NN O I-OUT
signed-rank NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
within-group NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
used NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Mann-Whitney NN O I-OUT
U NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
between-group NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
considered NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
3 NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
onward NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
tactile NN O I-OUT
stimulus NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
and NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
NovaMin NN O O
powder NN O O
and NN O O
NovaMin-containing NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
for NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
reduction NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
desensitizing NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
containing NN O O
potassium NN O O
nitrate NN O O
and NN O O
fluoride NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20689977)

Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
dysfunctional NN O O
fear NN O O
of NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fear NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
often NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
conditions NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
targets NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
client-centered NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
supportive-experiential NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dysfunctional NN O I-PAR
fear NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
incremental NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
among NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
means NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incremental NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
graphic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
1,000 NN O O
bootstrap NN O O
replications NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
economic NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
estimated NN O I-OUT
means NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fear NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
< NN O O
euro NN O O
> NN O O
9,045.03 NN O O
[ NN O O
6,359.07 NN O O
; NN O O
12,091.87 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
1.41 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.93 NN O O
; NN O O
1.92 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SET NN O O
and NN O O
< NN O O
euro NN O O
> NN O O
6,682.78 NN O O
[ NN O O
4,998.09 NN O O
; NN O O
8,440.95 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
1.44 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.02 NN O O
; NN O O
1.09 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incremental NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
amounts NN O O
to NN O O
minus NN O O
< NN O O
euro NN O O
> NN O O
78,741.66 NN O O
[ NN O O
-154,987.20 NN O O
; NN O O
110,486.32 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
unit NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
92.4 NN O O
% NN O O
chance NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
SET NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
costs NN O O
to NN O O
payers NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
main NN O O
result NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
non-directive NN O O
encounter NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
our NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20705223)

Modest NN O O
visceral NN O O
fat NN O I-INT
gain NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
endothelial NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
gain NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
distribution NN O O
on NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
lean NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Endothelial NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
fat NN O I-INT
gain NN O I-INT
impairs NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O I-INT
gain NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-three NN O I-PAR
normal-weight NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
gain NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
4 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
n=35 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
flow-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
fat NN O O
gain NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
fat NN O O
gainers NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
weight NN O O
maintainers NN O O
. NN O O

Body NN O O
composition NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
dual-energy NN O O
X-ray NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
and NN O O
abdominal NN O O
computed NN O O
tomographic NN O O
scans NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
weight NN O O
gain NN O O
of NN O O
4.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
fat NN O O
gainers NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visceral NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overnight NN O I-OUT
polysomnography NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
after NN O O
fat NN O O
gain NN O O
or NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

FMD NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O O
maintainers NN O O
. NN O O

FMD NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
fat NN O O
gainers NN O O
( NN O O
9.1+/-3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.8+/-3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
recovered NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
when NN O O
subjects NN O O
shed NN O O
the NN O O
gained NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
FMD NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
visceral NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
rho=-0.42 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
rho=-0.22 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
normal-weight NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
modest NN O O
fat NN O I-INT
gain NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
impaired NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
recovers NN O O
after NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
visceral NN O I-OUT
rather NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
predicts NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Fat NN O O
Gain NN O O
and NN O O
Cardiovascular NN O O
Disease NN O O
Mechanisms NN O O
; NN O O
NCT00589498 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20708275)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
sleep NN O O
quality NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
hormones NN O O
predict NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
postpartum NN O O
depression NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Poor NN O O
sleep NN O O
quality NN O O
, NN O O
dysregulation NN O O
of NN O O
hormones NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
are NN O O
all NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
postpartum NN O O
major NN O O
depression NN O O
( NN O O
PPMD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hormones NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
17 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postpartum NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
cytokine NN O O
measure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
PPMD NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=56 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
past NN O I-PAR
histories NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
MDD/PPMD NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Pittsburgh NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
PSQI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
collected NN O I-INT
8 NN O O
times NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
17 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postpartum NN O O
. NN O O

Estradiol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
single NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assayed NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
21-item NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRSD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores?15 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinician NN O I-OUT
interview NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
PPMD NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
poor NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hormones NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
PPMD NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
medication NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
every NN O O
one NN O O
point NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
PSQI NN O O
scores NN O O
across NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
woman NN O O
's NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
recurrence NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
PSQI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
early NN O O
postpartum NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
=0.98 NN O O
, NN O O
p=.32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Poor NN O O
sleep NN O O
quality NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
17 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-delivery NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
recurrent NN O O
PPMD NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Changes NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
hormonal NN O O
milieu NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
exploration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
poor NN O O
sleep NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
hormonal NN O O
and NN O O
cytokine NN O O
dysregulation NN O O
and NN O O
how NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiology NN O O
of NN O O
PPMD NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20723873)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Ligaclip NN O I-INT
with NN O O
bipolar NN O O
energy NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
lymphocele NN O O
during NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
lymphadenectomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Ligaclip NN O O
( NN O O
Ethicon NN O O
Endo-Surgery NN O O
, NN O O
Cincinnati NN O O
, NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
bipolar NN O O
coagulation NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
lymphoceles NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
pelvic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
for NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
lymphadenectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
for NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pelvis NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Ligaclip NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
side NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O I-INT
coagulation NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
seal NN O I-INT
lymphatic NN O I-INT
vessels NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
detected NN O O
lymphocele NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Lymphocele NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O O
where NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
pelvic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
was NN O O
perfomed NN O O
using NN O O
bipolar NN O O
coagulation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
3.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patient NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O O
where NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
pelvic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Ligaclip NN O O
. NN O O

Univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
Ligaclip NN O O
's NN O O
use NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
electrocoagulation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
pelvic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictive NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lymphocele NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Ligaclip NN O O
to NN O O
close NN O O
lymphatic NN O O
vessels NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lymphoceles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
lymphadenectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20730486)

Reversal NN O O
of NN O O
skeletal NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
endocrine NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
Exemestane NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
aromatase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
in NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O O
health NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density NN O O
( NN O O
BMD NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
switch NN O O
from NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
to NN O O
exemestane NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
Exemestane NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
IES NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
endocrine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O O
on NN O O
BMD NN O O
, NN O O
bone NN O O
turnover NN O O
markers NN O O
( NN O O
BTM NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fracture NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

4,724 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
IES NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
206 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
sub-study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BMD NN O O
and NN O O
BTM NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
pre-randomization NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
EOT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
treatment NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
12- NN O O
and NN O O
24-month NN O O
post NN O O
EOT NN O O
BMD NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
122 NN O O
and NN O O
126 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
patient NN O O
numbers NN O O
had NN O O
BTM NN O O
measured NN O O
post NN O O
EOT NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
treatment NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
endocrine NN O O
strategies NN O O
were NN O O
partially NN O O
reversed NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
EOT NN O O
, NN O O
spine NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
1.53 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.63-2.43 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
stopping NN O O
exemestane NN O O
and NN O O
fell NN O O
by NN O O
1.93 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-2.91 NN O O
to NN O O
0.95 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
similar NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
hip NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
post NN O O
EOT NN O O
, NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

Corresponding NN O O
inverse NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BTM NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
following NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
after NN O O
exemestane NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
higher NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exemestane NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
switch NN O O
strategy NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
IES NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
exemestane NN O I-INT
are NN O O
reversed NN O O
. NN O O

Ongoing NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
BMD NN O O
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
not NN O O
routinely NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2076713)

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
parallel NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
active NN O O
metabolite NN O O
perindoprilat NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angiotensin NN O I-OUT
converting NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
for NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
appropriate NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Similar NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
11/7 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
supine NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O O
at NN O O
these NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
given NN O O
together NN O O
was NN O O
additive NN O O
on NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
synergistic NN O O
on NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24.5/12.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
supine NN O O
) NN O O
taking NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
by NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
was NN O O
potentiated NN O O
by NN O O
concurrent NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
perindoprilat NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
receiving NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
small NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
ACE NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Perindopril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whether NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
produced NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
routine NN O I-OUT
haematology NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
biochemistry NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
additive NN O O
or NN O O
synergistic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
complementary NN O O
physiological NN O O
actions NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20828635)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
genetic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
environmental NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GERA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
: NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
paper NN O O
describes NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
genetic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
environmental NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GERA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
screening NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
includes NN O O
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
50-79years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
up-to-date NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
guidelines NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
telephone NN O I-OUT
survey NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
GERA NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
GERA NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
meet NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
decide NN O I-INT
whether NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
have NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
GERA NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
genetic NN O I-INT
polymorphism NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
folate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
tested NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
GERA NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Follow-up NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-OUT
surveys NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
chart NN O I-OUT
audit NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
6months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
2,223 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
562 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
0.001 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
tended NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
50-59years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
married NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
participants NN O O
had NN O O
some NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CRC NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GERA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
viewed NN O O
CRC NN O O
screening NN O O
favorably NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
decided NN O O
to NN O O
do NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

Almost NN O O
half NN O O
had NN O O
worries NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
concerns NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
CRC NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Age NN O O
was NN O O
negatively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
enrollment NN O O
. NN O O

Prospective NN O O
analyses NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
more NN O O
definitive NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
GERA NN O I-INT
uptake NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
GERA NN O I-INT
feedback NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2087856)

[ NN O I-OUT
Acute NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
interval NN O O
and NN O O
endurance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
selected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
aortocoronary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
interval NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
after NN O O
coronary NN O O
bypass NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
resp NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
ergometer NN O I-INT
start NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
post-operative NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
26 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
resp NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
both NN O O
training NN O O
groups NN O O
training NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
set NN O O
at NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
maximum NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
last NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
83 NN O I-INT
watts NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
20:121 NN O I-INT
watts NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
work NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
1:1 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
this NN O O
exercise NN O O
training NN O O
that NN O O
lasted NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rate-pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
catecholamines NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
both NN O O
methods NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rate-pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
catecholamine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interval NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

And NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
higher NN O O
peripheral NN O O
exercise NN O O
intensity NN O O
by NN O O
interval NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
higher NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
interval NN O O
training NN O O
strains NN O O
the NN O O
oxidative NN O O
capacity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trained NN O O
muscles NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
intensive NN O O
and NN O O
direct NN O O
way NN O O
than NN O O
does NN O O
continuous NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20884344)

Hypoxic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
senescent NN O I-OUT
T-lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
subsets NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
integration NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
regulated NN O O
trafficking NN O O
of NN O O
T-lymphocytes NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
elucidates NN O O
how NN O O
various NN O O
exercises NN O O
regimens NN O O
with/without NN O O
hypoxia NN O O
affect NN O O
phenotypic NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
T-lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
subsets NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fifty NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
five NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
interventions NN O O
: NN O O
normoxic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
O? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
resting NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N-C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hypoxic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
O? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
resting NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H-C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
normoxic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
W NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
max NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
O? NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
N-T NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hypoxic-relative NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
maximal NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
reserve NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
O? NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
H-RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hypoxic-absolute NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
W NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
max NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
O? NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
H-AT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
min/day NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
days/week NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
strenuous NN O O
exercise NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
exhaustion NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
bright NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
expressing NN O I-OUT
activated NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CD11a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
senescent NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
KLRG1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
molecules NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
compartment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
H-AT NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
up-regulated NN O I-OUT
co-stimulatory NN O I-OUT
molecule NN O I-OUT
CD28 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
accompanied NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
depressed NN O O
KLRG1 NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
CD3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
bright NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Simultaneously NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-INT
interferon-? NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IFN-? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
unchanged NN O I-OUT
interleukin-4 NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
myeloperoxidase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MPO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
resting NN O O
and NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
mobilizations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
various NN O I-OUT
T-lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
subsets NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
productions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MPO NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
the NN O I-INT
N-C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
H-C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
N-T NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
H-RT NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therefore NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
we NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
4-week NN O O
H-AT NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
senescent NN O I-OUT
T-lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
subsets NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
IFN-? NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
responses NN O O
are NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O I-OUT
depressed NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pro-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
can NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
hypoxic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
to NN O O
minimize NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
retarding NN O O
T-lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
senescence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20946200)

Randomized NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
obsessive NN O I-PAR
compulsive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
obsessive NN O I-PAR
compulsive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OCD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
out-patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OCD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
at NN O O
6- NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
supplemented NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
accomplished NN O O
comparative NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
for NN O O
OCD NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Large NN O O
and NN O O
stable NN O O
pre-post NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
conditions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
1.06-1.24 NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Yale-Brown NN O I-OUT
Obsessive NN O I-OUT
Compulsive NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
data NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
ds= NN O O
-0.13 NN O O
to NN O O
0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
accomplished NN O O
comparative NN O O
studies NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
one NN O O
) NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
between-group NN O O
mean NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
d= NN O O
0.15 NN O O
favouring NN O O
individual NN O O
over NN O O
group NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
at NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
-0.12 NN O O
, NN O O
0.42 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
OCD NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
effectively NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-INT
format NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
sparing NN O O
some NN O O
therapist NN O O
resources NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
accomplished NN O O
comparative NN O O
studies NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
rule NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
individually NN O O
conducted NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21048092)

Dopexamine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
goal-directed NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
undergoing NN O I-INT
major NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Dopexamine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
both NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
major NN O O
surgery NN O O
when NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
oxygen NN O O
delivery NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
perioperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
European NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
dopexamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
showing NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
high-risk NN O O
patients NN O O
when NN O O
receiving NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
dopexamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
?g NN O O
? NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
? NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
reduced NN O O
oxygen NN O O
uptake NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
threshold NN O O
( NN O O
AT NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
confer NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-INT
major NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
allows NN O O
objective NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high-risk NN O O
operative NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
dopexamine NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
morbidity NN O O
after NN O I-INT
major NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
virtue NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
AT NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-INT
colorectal NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
urological NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
AT NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
mL NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
AT NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
mL NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Before NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
radial NN O O
arterial NN O O
cannula NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
and NN O O
attached NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
Edwards NN O O
Lifesciences NN O O
FloTrac/Vigileo NN O O
system NN O O
for NN O O
measuring NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
250-mL NN O O
bolus NN O O
of NN O I-INT
Voluven NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hydroxyethyl NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
130/0.4 NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
the NN O O
stroke NN O O
volume NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
dopexamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
? NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
? NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fluid NN O O
boluses NN O O
of NN O O
Voluven NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
stroke NN O O
volume NN O O
variation NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
crystalloid NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
standardized NN O O
postoperative NN O O
fluid NN O O
regime NN O O
with NN O I-INT
Hartmann NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
was NN O O
prescribed NN O O
at NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mL NN O O
? NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
? NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
Morbidity NN O O
Survey NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
23-month NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
Morbidity NN O O
Survey NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
was NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
47 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dopexamine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
any NN O O
measured NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dopexamine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
earlier NN O O
return NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tolerating NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
enteral NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
With NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O O
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
goal-directed NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
elective NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
routine NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O I-INT
dopexamine NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
confer NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21063747)

West NN O O
vs. NN O O
West NN O O
like NN O O
East NN O O
vs. NN O O
West NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
Italian NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
context NN O I-PAR
sensitivity NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Fear NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Isolation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Easterners NN O I-PAR
tend NN O O
to NN O O
process NN O O
information NN O O
more NN O O
holistically NN O O
than NN O O
Westerners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Kim NN O O
and NN O O
Markman NN O O
( NN O O
J NN O O
Exp NN O O
Soc NN O O
Psychol NN O O
42 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
:350-364 NN O O
, NN O O
2006 NN O O
) NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
are NN O O
rooted NN O O
in NN O O
higher NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
of NN O O
Fear NN O O
of NN O O
Isolation NN O O
( NN O O
FOI NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
cultures NN O O
that NN O O
process NN O O
information NN O O
more NN O O
holistically NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
their NN O O
suggested NN O O
cause NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
Western NN O I-PAR
cultures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Testing NN O I-PAR
Italian NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
IT NN O O
participants NN O O
processed NN O O
information NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
holistically NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FOI NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
US NN O O
participants NN O O
; NN O O
furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
manipulation NN O O
of NN O O
FOI NN O I-OUT
affected NN O I-OUT
context NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
for NN O O
IT NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
US NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
IT NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
research NN O O
with NN O O
Eastern NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
with NN O O
Western NN O O
populations NN O O
( NN O O
Kim NN O O
and NN O O
Markman NN O O
in NN O O
J NN O O
Exp NN O O
Soc NN O O
Psychol NN O O
42 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
:350-364 NN O O
, NN O O
2006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
within-Western NN O O
culture NN O O
difference NN O O
for NN O O
reasoning NN O O
styles NN O O
and NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FOI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2108990)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
HCG NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
after NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist/HMG NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-PAR
programme NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
necessity NN O O
of NN O O
luteal-phase NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
IVF NN O I-PAR
programme NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
of NN O O
continuing NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-INT
and NN O O
human NN O I-INT
menopausal NN O I-INT
gonadotrophin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HMG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
luteal NN O O
phase NN O O
has NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
scientifically NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist/HMG NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
luteal NN O O
phase NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
inadequate NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O O
progesterone NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-INT
chorionic NN O I-INT
gonadotrophin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
HCG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
193 NN O I-PAR
transfers NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
against NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
194 NN O I-PAR
transfers NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
ongoing NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
HCG NN O I-INT
( NN O O
18.7 NN O O
versus NN O O
9.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
truly NN O O
objective NN O O
( NN O O
randomized NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
luteal NN O O
phase NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
IVF NN O I-PAR
programme NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21145428)

Right NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
MADIT-II NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
mainly NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2116385)

Cost NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
incontinent NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
homes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
133 NN O I-PAR
incontinent NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
homes NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
cost NN O O
implications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
lasted NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
22-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
durability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
therapy NN O O
became NN O O
effective NN O O
after NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
wet NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
been NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
0.6 NN O O
episode NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
26 NN O O
percent NN O O
reduction NN O O
over NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Trainees NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
frequency NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
incontinence NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
relatively NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
capacity NN O I-PAR
responded NN O O
better NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
equivalent NN O O
of NN O O
about NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
of NN O O
nursing NN O O
aide NN O O
time NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
incontinence NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
savings NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
laundry NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
supplies NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
quantitatively NN O O
unmeasurable NN O O
but NN O O
detectable NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
trainees NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
figure NN O O
in NN O O
implementing NN O O
this NN O O
training NN O O
protocol NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
nursing NN O O
aide NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
an NN O O
organizational NN O O
management NN O O
scheme NN O O
that NN O O
will NN O O
stimulate NN O O
nursing NN O O
aides NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
incontinence NN O O
among NN O O
nursing NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21183747)

Relationship NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
mean NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
pulse NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
variability NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
outcome NN O O
after NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Tinzaparin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Acute NN O I-INT
Ischaemic NN O I-INT
Stroke NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
TAIST NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
High NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
independently NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
other NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
parameters NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
outcomes NN O O
following NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
BP NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
TAIST NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
unadjusted NN O O
and NN O O
adjusted NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.02 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.01-1.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.02 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.01-1.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.02 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.01-1.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.03 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.01-1.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
relationships NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
deterioration NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Early NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
neurologic NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
associated NN O O
independently NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
measures NN O O
offer NN O O
potential NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-INT
targets NN O I-INT
for NN O O
improving NN O O
early NN O O
outcome NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21193295)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
on NN O O
inflammation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
apnea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Inflammation NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
one NN O O
mediating NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
apnea NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
subclinical NN O O
inflammation NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
inflammation NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
OSA NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
substudy NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
existing NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
changes NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
weight NN O O
reduction NN O O
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
supervised NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N=28 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N=31 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
routine NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
advices NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Circulating NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
pro- NN O O
and NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
mediators NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
pro-inflammatory NN O O
mediators NN O O
, NN O O
high-sensitivity NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interleukin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
favored NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
supervised NN O O
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
IL-1 NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
( NN O O
IL-1RA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
apnea-hypopnea NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
night-time NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
tumor NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor NN O O
alpha NN O O
. NN O O

IL-1RA NN O O
and NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
insulin NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
pro- NN O O
and NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
mediators NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
overall NN O O
favoring NN O O
the NN O O
supervised NN O O
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
more NN O O
intensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
obesity NN O O
in NN O O
OSA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
might NN O O
be NN O O
well-justified NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21214129)

Impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
clindamycin NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
1.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
-benzoyl NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
aqueous NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
on NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
acne NN O O
vulgaris NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
acne-specific NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
( NN O O
Acne-QoL NN O O
) NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
4 NN O O
domains NN O O
( NN O O
acne NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
role-emotional NN O O
, NN O O
self-perception NN O O
, NN O O
role-social NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
analysis NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
clindamycin NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
1.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
-benzoyl NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
clindamycin-BPO NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
on NN O O
HRQL NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
2813 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
presented NN O O
within NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
include NN O O
factors NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
study-by-treatment NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
identical NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
across NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
justify NN O O
pooling NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Acne-QoL NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
clindamycin-BPO NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
gel NN O O
significantly NN O I-PAR
improved NN O I-PAR
participant-reported NN O I-PAR
HRQL NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
all NN O O
4 NN O O
domains NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
individual NN O O
active NN O O
ingredients NN O O
and NN O O
vehicle NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
Acne-QoL NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
clindamycin-BPO NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
gel NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
facial NN O O
acne NN O O
on NN O O
HRQL NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
motivators NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
seek NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
underscores NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
physicians NN O O
incorporating NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
HRQL NN O O
into NN O O
their NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21260940)

[ NN O O
Intravesical NN O O
electrostimulation NN O O
and NN O O
magnetophoresis NN O O
in NN O O
overactive NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
Amus-01-Intramag NN O O
device NN O O
with NN O O
Intrastim NN O O
attachment NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

High-frequency NN O I-INT
intravesical NN O I-INT
electroneurostimulation NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
made NN O I-INT
simultaneously NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
magnetophoresis NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
oxibutinin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
oxibutinin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
such NN O O
method NN O O
was NN O O
two NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
overactive NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
shorter NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Laser NN O O
Doppler NN O O
flowmetry NN O O
discovered NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
corrects NN O O
microcirculation NN O O
in NN O O
bladder NN O O
mucosa NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21266651)

Factors NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Juvenile NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
Research NN O O
Foundation NN O O
continuous NN O O
glucose NN O O
monitoring NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
dataset NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Identify NN O O
factors NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
utility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
warn NN O O
of NN O O
impending NN O O
SH NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
436 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
used NN O O
CGM NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
224 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
that NN O O
used NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
212 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
completed NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
initiated NN O O
CGM NN O I-INT
while NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
continued NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
CGM NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
SH NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
using NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
regression NN O O
. NN O O

CGM-derived NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
SH NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
24-h NN O O
time NN O O
horizon NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
SH NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
17.9 NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
person-years NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
SH NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prior NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
female NN O O
sex NN O O
. NN O O

SH NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
eightfold NN O O
when NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
CGM NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
? NN O O
70 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
prior NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
4.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
low NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemic NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
CGM NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
SH NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
SH NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
study NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CGM-measured NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
24-h NN O O
span NN O O
is NN O O
highly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
SH NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
PPV NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
low NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21295919)

Using NN O O
personalized NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
alcohol NN O O
use NN O O
among NN O O
hazardous NN O I-PAR
drinking NN O I-PAR
college NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
moderating NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
alcohol-related NN O O
negative NN O O
consequences NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Web-based NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
brief NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
that NN O O
include NN O O
personalized NN O O
feedback NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
alcohol NN O O
use NN O O
have NN O O
proven NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
particularly NN O O
promising NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
hazardous NN O I-PAR
drinking NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Despite NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
approaches NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
relatively NN O O
little NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
how NN O O
the NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
interventions NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
who NN O O
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
most NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
approaches NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
these NN O O
issues NN O O
by NN O O
examining NN O O
how NN O O
individual NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
alcohol NN O O
consequences NN O O
influence NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
laboratory-based NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
One-hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nineteen NN O I-PAR
introductory NN O I-PAR
psychology NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
heavy NN O I-PAR
episodic NN O I-PAR
drinking NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
past NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
scored NN O I-PAR
?8 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
AUDIT NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
credit NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
conditions NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
2 NN O O
Intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Alcohol NN O I-INT
Feedback NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
?2 NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Motivational NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
No NN O I-INT
Motivational NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
between-subjects NN O I-INT
design NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Quantity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
consumed NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heavy NN O I-OUT
episodic NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
later NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
primary NN O O
dependent NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Controlling NN O O
for NN O O
corresponding NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hierarchical NN O I-OUT
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
intervention NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
alcohol-related NN O O
consequences NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
alcohol NN O O
consequences NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
alcohol NN O O
intervention NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fewer NN O I-OUT
heavy NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
intervention NN O O
conditions NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
few NN O O
baseline NN O O
consequences NN O O
. NN O O

Assessment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
moderate NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
feedback-based NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
includes NN O O
normative NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
hazardous NN O I-PAR
drinking NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
alcohol-related NN O I-PAR
consequences NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21324150)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
family NN O I-INT
practice-based NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O O
increase NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
physiological NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O O
health NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SNAC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
targeted NN O O
at NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
established NN O O
disease NN O O
; NN O O
less NN O O
attention NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
among NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
nor NN O O
has NN O O
there NN O O
been NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
setting NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
is NN O O
provided NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
family NN O O
practice NN O O
represents NN O O
an NN O O
ideal NN O O
setting NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
provision NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ie NN O I-PAR
high-normal NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
Staged NN O I-PAR
Nutrition NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Activity NN O I-PAR
Counseling NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SNAC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clustered NN O O
design NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
will NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multi-component NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
by NN O O
practice NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
behaviourally-based NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
matched NN O I-INT
prescriptive NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
change NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
goal NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improve NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
Canada NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Guides NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Healthy NN O I-OUT
Eating NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
will NN O O
compare NN O O
behavioral NN O O
, NN O O
physiological NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
outcomes NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
post-randomization NN O O
including NN O O
estimation NN O O
of NN O O
incident NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O O
diabetes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
design NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
practical NN O O
problems NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
solutions NN O O
) NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
implementing NN O O
these NN O O
design NN O O
features NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
those NN O O
that NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
potential NN O O
delay NN O O
between NN O O
recruitment NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
, NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
assessment NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SNAC NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
scientific NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ISRCTN NN O O
: NN O O
ISRCTN:42921300 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21329577)

Quitting NN O O
a NN O O
weight NN O I-INT
loss NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
anhedonia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
preliminary NN O I-PAR
findings NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Lifestyle NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
Evaluation NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
northern NN O I-PAR
Finland NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
for NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
quitting NN O O
a NN O O
weight NN O I-INT
loss NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
82 NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Lifestyle NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
Evaluation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
LITE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Oulu NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
northern NN O I-PAR
Finland NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Psychiatric NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Structured NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Interview NN O O
for NN O O
DSMIV NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O O
( NN O O
SCID-I NN O O
) NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
psychiatrist NN O O
. NN O O

Anhedonia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pleasure NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
depression NN O O
( NN O O
dysthymia NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Anhedonia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
present NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
reported NN O O
having NN O O
suffered NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
24.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
quit NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Anhedonia NN O I-OUT
put NN O O
individuals NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
quitting NN O O
the NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
program NN O O
( NN O O
bivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
OR NN O O
3.1 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.8-11.6 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.091 NN O O
, NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
OR NN O O
6.5 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.1-38.2 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
for NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
quitting NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Individual NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
obesity NN O O
and NN O O
overweight NN O O
should NN O O
also NN O O
include NN O O
an NN O O
assessment NN O O
for NN O O
subthreshold NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
anhedonia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21334061)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
adaptive NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
graded NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
specialist NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
PACE NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Trial NN O O
findings NN O O
show NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
graded NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O O
fatigue NN O O
syndrome NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
organisations NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
treatments NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
harmful NN O O
and NN O O
favour NN O O
pacing NN O I-INT
and NN O O
specialist NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
our NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
Oxford NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-INT
secondary-care NN O I-INT
clinics NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
UK NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
computer-generated NN O I-INT
sequence NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SMC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
APT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
GET NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Chalder NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
short NN O I-OUT
form-36 NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
randomisation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
primarily NN O O
by NN O O
recording NN O O
all NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
trial NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
by NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
necessarily NN O O
unmasked NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
statistician NN O O
was NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
longitudinal NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
compare NN O I-INT
SMC NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
APT NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
APT NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
GET NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
final NN O O
analysis NN O O
included NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
for NN O O
whom NN O O
we NN O O
had NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//isrctn.org NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
ISRCTN54285094 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
We NN O O
recruited NN O O
641 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
160 NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
APT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
161 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
160 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
GET NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
160 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
SMC-alone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
SMC NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
3?4 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1?8 NN O O
to NN O O
5?0 NN O O
) NN O O
points NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
CBT NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3?2 NN O O
( NN O O
1?7 NN O O
to NN O O
4?8 NN O O
) NN O O
points NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
GET NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0?0003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
for NN O O
APT NN O O
( NN O O
0?7 NN O O
[ NN O O
-0?9 NN O O
to NN O O
2?3 NN O O
] NN O O
points NN O O
lower NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0?38 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
SMC NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
7?1 NN O O
( NN O O
2?0 NN O O
to NN O O
12?1 NN O O
) NN O O
points NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
CBT NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0?0068 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
9?4 NN O O
( NN O O
4?4 NN O O
to NN O O
14?4 NN O O
) NN O O
points NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
GET NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0?0005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
for NN O O
APT NN O O
( NN O O
3?4 NN O O
[ NN O O
-1?6 NN O O
to NN O O
8?4 NN O O
] NN O O
points NN O O
lower NN O O
; NN O O
p=0?18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
APT NN O O
, NN O O
CBT NN O O
and NN O O
GET NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CBT NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
= NN O O
0?0027 NN O O
; NN O O
GET NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0?0059 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CBT NN O O
p=0?0002 NN O O
; NN O O
GET NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
427 NN O O
participants NN O O
meeting NN O O
international NN O O
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
329 NN O O
participants NN O O
meeting NN O O
London NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
myalgic NN O O
encephalomyelitis NN O O
yielded NN O O
equivalent NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
159 NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
APT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
161 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
160 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GET NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
160 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SMC-alone NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
CBT NN O O
and NN O O
GET NN O O
can NN O O
safely NN O O
be NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
SMC NN O O
to NN O O
moderately NN O O
improve NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
APT NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
addition NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
UK NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
, NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
Health NN O O
for NN O O
England NN O O
, NN O O
Scottish NN O O
Chief NN O O
Scientist NN O O
Office NN O O
, NN O O
Department NN O O
for NN O O
Work NN O O
and NN O O
Pensions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21346207)

Human NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
cortex NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
V1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
selective NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
second-order NN O I-PAR
spatial NN O I-PAR
frequency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
cues NN O O
can NN O O
differentiate NN O O
objects NN O O
from NN O O
their NN O O
surrounds NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
include NN O O
first-order NN O O
cues NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
luminance NN O O
modulations NN O O
and NN O O
second-order NN O O
cues NN O O
involving NN O O
modulations NN O O
of NN O O
orientation NN O O
and NN O O
contrast NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O I-PAR
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
first-order NN O O
modulations NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
described NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
computational NN O O
model NN O O
involving NN O O
spatially NN O O
localized NN O O
filters NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
selective NN O O
for NN O O
orientation NN O O
and NN O O
spatial NN O O
frequency NN O O
( NN O O
SF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
widely NN O O
held NN O O
that NN O O
first-order NN O O
modulations NN O O
are NN O O
represented NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
firing NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
simple NN O O
and NN O O
complex NN O O
cells NN O O
( NN O O
first-order NN O O
neurons NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
cortex NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
V1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
, NN O O
likewise NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
spatially NN O O
localized NN O O
receptive NN O O
fields NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
selective NN O O
for NN O O
orientation- NN O O
and NN O O
SF NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
second-order NN O O
modulations NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
described NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
filter-rectify-filter NN O O
( NN O O
FRF NN O O
) NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
first- NN O O
and NN O O
second-order NN O O
filters NN O O
selective NN O O
for NN O O
orientation NN O O
and NN O O
SF NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
how NN O O
neuronal NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O O
cortex NN O O
represents NN O O
second-order NN O I-OUT
modulations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
FRF NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
by NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
functional NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
f NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
MRI-adaptation NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
selectivity NN O O
of NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O O
cortex NN O O
to NN O O
second-order NN O O
, NN O O
orientation-defined NN O O
gratings NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
SFs NN O O
. NN O O

fMRI NN O O
responses NN O O
throughout NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
cortex NN O I-PAR
exhibited NN O O
selective NN O O
adaptation NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
low-SF NN O O
grating NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
adapter NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
high-SF NN O O
grating NN O O
, NN O O
incompatible NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
FRF NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
extended NN O O
the NN O O
FRF NN O O
model NN O O
by NN O O
incorporating NN O O
normalization NN O O
, NN O O
yielding NN O O
a NN O O
filter-rectify-normalize-filter NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
normalization NN O O
enhances NN O O
selectivity NN O O
for NN O O
second-order NN O O
SF NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
low NN O O
spatial NN O O
frequencies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
neurons NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
cortex NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
selective NN O O
for NN O O
second-order NN O O
SF NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
normalization NN O O
( NN O O
surround NN O O
suppression NN O O
) NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
selectivity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
selectivity NN O O
in NN O O
higher NN O O
visual NN O O
areas NN O O
is NN O O
simply NN O O
fed NN O O
forward NN O O
from NN O O
V1 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21354925)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
on NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
dosage NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
following NN O O
thoracoscope-assisted NN O I-INT
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
on NN O O
morphine NN O O
dosage NN O O
in NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
following NN O O
thoracoscope-assisted NN O I-INT
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
series NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
thoracoscope-assisted NN O I-INT
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
5 NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
PCA NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
200 NN O O
ml NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
groups NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Parecoxib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mixture NN O O
( NN O I-INT
4-5 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
intercostal NN O O
spaces NN O O
upper NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
incision NN O O
before NN O O
chest NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

PCA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
coughing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
PCA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
button-pressing NN O O
times NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
/D NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
PCA NN O I-INT
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
6 NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
coughing NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
h. NN O O
D NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
/D NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
4-24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
such NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
PCA NN O I-INT
following NN O O
thoracoscope-assisted NN O O
thoracotomy NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
good NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
without NN O O
affecting NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
respiratory NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
sputum NN O O
elimination NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21402409)

Prenatal NN O O
depression NN O O
predicts NN O O
postpartum NN O O
maternal NN O O
attachment NN O O
in NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
Latina NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
maternal NN O O
attachment NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
infant NN O O
attachment NN O O
security NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
developmental NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
maternal NN O O
attachment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
few NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
infant NN O O
's NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
among NN O O
ethnic NN O O
minority NN O O
mothers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O O
maternal NN O O
attachment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
217 NN O I-PAR
Latina NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
perinatal NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mothers NN O O
' NN O O
attachment NN O I-INT
to NN O O
their NN O O
infants NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
6-8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
postpartum NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Maternal NN O I-OUT
Postnatal NN O I-OUT
Attachment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
attachment NN O O
were NN O O
explored NN O O
including NN O O
: NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
feelings NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
partner NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
strongest NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
late NN O O
in NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
; NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
intention NN O O
was NN O O
marginally NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
attachment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
scores NN O O
being NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
unwanted NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
fills NN O O
a NN O O
critical NN O O
gap NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
in NN O O
shaping NN O O
mothers NN O O
' NN O O
early NN O O
attachment NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21430242)

Fecal NN O I-OUT
butyrate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
vary NN O O
widely NN O O
among NN O O
individuals NN O O
but NN O O
are NN O O
usually NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
resistant NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Butyrate NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
SCFA NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
bacterial NN O O
fermentation NN O O
of NN O O
resistant NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
nonstarch NN O I-INT
polysaccharides NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
promote NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
colonic NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
examine NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
fecal NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
butyrate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
among NN O O
individuals NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
fibers NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
foods NN O I-INT
supplying NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
NSP NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
NSP NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
22 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
RS/d NN O I-INT
over NN O O
4 NN O O
wk NN O O
in NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
31-66 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fecal NN O I-OUT
SCFA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
varied NN O I-PAR
widely NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
butyrate NN O I-PAR
concentrations NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
3.5-32.6 NN O I-PAR
mmol/kg NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
butyrate NN O I-PAR
excretions NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
0.3-18.2 NN O I-PAR
mmol/48 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O O
explained NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
inter-individual NN O O
butyrate NN O O
variation NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
starch NN O O
, NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
, NN O O
fiber NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fat NN O O
intake NN O O
explained NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
butyrate NN O O
variation NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
acetate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
butyrate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
SCFA NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
when NN O O
participants NN O O
consumed NN O O
RS NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
entry NN O O
and NN O O
NSP NN O I-INT
diets NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
individual NN O O
responses NN O O
varied NN O O
. NN O O

Individual NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
fecal NN O I-OUT
SCFA NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
moisture NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
for NN O O
habitual NN O O
diets NN O O
when NN O O
either NN O O
fiber NN O O
diet NN O O
was NN O O
consumed NN O O
. NN O O

SCFA NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
except NN O I-OUT
butyrate NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
excretions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
males NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
females NN O O
. NN O O

Butyrate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
RS NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
individuals NN O O
but NN O O
often NN O O
decreased NN O O
when NN O O
entry NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

Fecal NN O I-OUT
butyrate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ammonia NN O I-OUT
excretions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
( NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.76 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
fecal NN O I-OUT
butyrate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
vary NN O O
widely NN O O
among NN O O
individuals NN O O
but NN O O
consuming NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
RS NN O I-INT
usually NN O O
increases NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
maintain NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21445888)

Microbial NN O O
protein NN O O
synthesis NN O O
, NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
capture NN O O
efficiency NN O O
and NN O O
nutrient NN O O
utilisation NN O O
in NN O O
sheep NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
finger NN O I-INT
millet NN O I-INT
straw NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Eleucine NN O I-INT
coracana NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-based NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
different NN O O
rumen-degradable NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Microbial NN O O
protein NN O O
synthesised NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rumen NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
important NN O O
protein NN O O
source NN O O
for NN O O
ruminants NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
adequate NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
rumen-degradable NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
( NN O O
RDN NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
optimum NN O O
microbial NN O O
protein NN O O
synthesis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rumen NN O O
on NN O O
straw-based NN O O
diets NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
RDN NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
optimum NN O O
microbial NN O O
protein NN O O
synthesis NN O O
( NN O O
MPS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
capture NN O O
efficiency NN O O
( NN O O
NCE NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
nutrient NN O O
utilisation NN O O
in NN O O
Nellore NN O I-PAR
rams NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
finger NN O I-INT
millet NN O I-INT
straw NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-based NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
Nellore NN O I-PAR
sheep NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
animals NN O O
each NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
balanced NN O O
, NN O O
completely NN O O
randomised NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
animals NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
RDN0 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
fed NN O O
with NN O O
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
FMS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Those NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
RDN1 NN O O
, NN O O
RDN2 NN O O
and NN O O
RDN3 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
groundnut NN O I-INT
cake NN O I-INT
to NN O O
provide NN O O
RDN NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
g NN O O
RDN NN O O
kg?? NN O O
digestible NN O O
organic NN O O
matter NN O O
intake NN O O
( NN O O
DOMI NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
21 NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
g NN O O
RDN NN O O
kg?? NN O O
digestible NN O O
organic NN O O
matter NN O O
apparently NN O O
digested NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rumen NN O O
( NN O O
DOMR NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O I-INT
FMS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
coefficients NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
nutrients NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MPS NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
quadratically NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RDN NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
NCE NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
linearly NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
RDN NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
12 NN O O
g NN O O
RDN NN O O
kg?? NN O O
DOMI NN O O
or NN O O
19 NN O O
g NN O O
RDN NN O O
kg?? NN O O
DOMR NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
adequate NN O O
for NN O O
optimum NN O O
MPS NN O O
, NN O O
NCE NN O O
and NN O O
digestibility NN O O
of NN O O
nutrients NN O O
in NN O O
sheep NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-INT
FMS-based NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21450630)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pain-free NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fibrinogen NN O O
, NN O O
haematocrit NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pain-free NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
haematocrit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Fontaine NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
treadmill NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
repetitive NN O O
intervals NN O O
to NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
claudication NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
change NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
over NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
performed NN O O
treadmill NN O I-INT
test NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
pain-free NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFWT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MWT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
haematocrit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
done NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
20,5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
14.6 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
19 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
training NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
these NN O O
lipids NN O O
were NN O O
insignificant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Haematocrit NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
insignificant NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

PFWT NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O O
by NN O O
109 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
MWT NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
walking NN O O
time NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
pain-free NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
parallels NN O I-INT
with NN O O
progressive NN O O
normalization NN O O
of NN O O
lipid NN O O
profiles NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21463068)

Concurrent NN O O
alcohol NN O I-INT
dependence NN O I-INT
among NN O O
methadone-maintained NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
abusers NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Concurrent NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
dependence NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
among NN O O
polysubstance NN O O
abusers NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
negative NN O O
consequences NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
necessarily NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
poor NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
efficacious NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
cocaine NN O O
abuse NN O O
is NN O O
contingency NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
little NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
AD NN O I-INT
on NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
methadone NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
three NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
CM NN O O
for NN O O
cocaine NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
posttreatment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
methadone-maintained NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cocaine-dependent NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
193 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
AD NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
AD NN O I-INT
had NN O O
similar NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
that NN O O
AD NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
alcohol NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

AD NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
longer NN O O
durations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
submit NN O O
a NN O O
cocaine-negative NN O I-OUT
sample NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
than NN O O
non-AD NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
better NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
SC NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
AD NN O I-INT
status NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
cocaine-using NN O I-PAR
methadone NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
AD NN O I-INT
achieve NN O O
greater NN O O
cocaine NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
their NN O O
non-AD NN O I-INT
counterparts NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
necessarily NN O O
be NN O O
viewed NN O O
as NN O O
more NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2146389)

Direct NN O I-INT
trocar NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
Verres NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
for NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
sterilization NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
designed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
compare NN O I-PAR
direct NN O I-INT
trocar NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
peritoneal NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Verres NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
tubal NN O I-INT
sterilization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Direct NN O I-INT
trocar NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
fewer NN O O
instrument NN O I-OUT
insertions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
21.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
smaller NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.67 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.32 NN O O
L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Direct NN O I-INT
trocar NN O I-INT
use NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
9 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
seconds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
needle NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
7 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
seconds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trocar NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Minor NN O I-OUT
omental NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
serious NN O O
complications NN O O
occurred NN O O
once NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21487259)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
word NN O O
fluency NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
AND NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
and NN O O
impaired NN O O
socialization NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

Preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
showed NN O O
possible NN O O
language NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
?-adrenergic NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Earlier NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
populations NN O O
suggested NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
might NN O O
benefit NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
tasks NN O O
involving NN O O
a NN O O
search NN O O
of NN O O
semantic NN O O
and NN O O
associative NN O O
networks NN O O
under NN O O
certain NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
wished NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
includes NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
semantic NN O O
fluency NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
letter NN O O
and NN O O
category NN O O
word NN O O
fluency NN O O
tasks NN O O
on NN O O
2 NN O O
separate NN O O
testing NN O O
sessions NN O O
; NN O O
1 NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
orally NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
after NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
counterbalanced NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
impaired NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
fluency NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Propranolol NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
category NN O I-OUT
fluency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
letter NN O I-OUT
fluency NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
among NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Expected NN O O
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
flexibility NN O O
of NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
semantic NN O O
and NN O O
associative NN O O
networks NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
observed NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
phonological NN O O
networks NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
potential NN O O
clinical NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2148830)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
hormone-resistant NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
estramustine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
low NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
Norwegian NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
modalities NN O O
for NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
hormone-resistant NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
estramustine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
another NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Epirubicin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
Medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
third NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Epirubicin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Best NN O I-OUT
palliation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
Epirubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
combination NN O O
also NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
longest NN O O
response NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21531178)

Theory-driven NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
osteoporosis NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
Black NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
osteoporosis NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
Black NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Churches NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
organizations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
south NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
counties NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Participants NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
started NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
following NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
's NN O O
program NN O O
completion NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
tested NN O O
curriculum NN O O
was NN O O
adapted NN O O
to NN O O
meet NN O O
the NN O O
needs NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Dietary NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
osteoporosis NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
ANALYSIS NN O O
Descriptive NN O O
and NN O O
summary NN O O
statistics NN O O
, NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
84.6 NN O O
% NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
= NN O O
70.2 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
developed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
theoretical NN O O
background NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
most NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
belief NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Assigned NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
A NN O O
theory-driven NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
valuable NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
behavior NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
bone NN O O
health NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Health NN O O
professionals NN O O
should NN O O
consider NN O O
using NN O O
more NN O O
theory-driven NN O O
approaches NN O O
in NN O O
intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21546263)

Immediate NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
tibiofibular NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lower NN O O
extremity NN O O
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
ankle NN O I-PAR
instability NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Persistent NN O O
muscle NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fibularis NN O O
longus NN O O
and NN O O
soleus NN O O
muscles NN O O
and NN O O
altered NN O O
joint NN O O
arthrokinematics NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
ankle NN O I-PAR
instability NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Joint NN O O
mobilization NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
ankle NN O O
joint NN O O
motion NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
surrounding NN O O
musculature NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
fibularis NN O O
longus NN O O
and NN O O
soleus NN O O
activation NN O O
following NN O O
tibiofibular NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CAI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
proximal NN O I-INT
tibiofibular NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
distal NN O I-INT
tibiofibular NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

A NN O O
two-way NN O O
mixed NN O O
model NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
M-wave NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
H/M NN O O
ratio NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fibularis NN O O
longus NN O O
and NN O O
soleus NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
pre NN O O
, NN O O
post NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
distal NN O O
tibiofibular NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
soleus NN O I-OUT
H/M NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
time NN O O
periods NN O O
except NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
( NN O O
P=.48 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proximal NN O O
tibiofibular NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
soleus NN O I-OUT
H/M NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
groups NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
fibularis NN O I-OUT
longus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10-30 NN O O
min NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
soleus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
) NN O O
H/M NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Interventions NN O O
directed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
tibiofibular NN O O
joint NN O O
acutely NN O O
increase NN O O
soleus NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21552085)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
academic NN O O
engagement NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
before NN O O
classroom NN O O
activities NN O O
improves NN O O
academic NN O O
engagement NN O O
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
stereotypic NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
employed NN O O
a NN O O
within-subjects NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
, NN O O
across NN O O
4 NN O O
classrooms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
running/jogging NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
classroom NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
classroom NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
preceded NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
on-task NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
correct/incorrect NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
Wilcoxon NN O I-OUT
signed NN O I-OUT
rank NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
compare NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
correct NN O O
responding NN O O
following NN O O
exercise NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
on-task NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
classroom NN O O
activities NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
academic NN O O
responding NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21575130)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
glycoPEGylated NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
activated NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
VII NN O I-INT
derivative NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
first NN O O
human NN O O
dose NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Extensive NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
ongoing NN O O
to NN O O
prolong NN O O
the NN O O
half-life NN O O
of NN O O
coagulation NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
techniques NN O O
is NN O I-INT
glycoPEGylation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O O
has NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
recombinant NN O O
activated NN O O
factor NN O O
VII NN O O
( NN O O
rFVIIa NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
rFVIIa NN O I-INT
derivative NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N7-GP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
prolonged NN O O
terminal NN O O
half-life NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
1/2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
clinical NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O I-INT
N7-GP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hemophilia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
inhibitors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
prolonged NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
1/2 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
N7-GP NN O O
can NN O O
potentially NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
dosing NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
thereby NN O O
facilitate NN O O
convenience NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
two NN O O
significant NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
effective NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
N7-GP NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dose-escalation NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N7-GP NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12.5-100 NN O I-PAR
?g NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O O
N7-GP NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
FVIIa NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measurable NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
mean NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
1/2 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
FVIIa NN O O
activity NN O O
was NN O O
15 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
N7-GP NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
dose-proportional NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
investigated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
N7-GP NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
neutralizing NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
N7-GP NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
detected NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
pharmacologic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
apparent NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
N7-GP NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
N7-GP NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
plasma NN O O
half-life NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
profile NN O O
that NN O O
makes NN O O
it NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
candidate NN O O
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hemophilia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
inhibitors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21576129)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
dronedarone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ATHENA NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
Cardiovascular NN O O
( NN O O
CV NN O O
) NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
CV NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
of NN O O
A NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-arm NN O O
Trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dronedarone NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
Hospitalization NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
any NN O O
cause NN O O
in NN O O
patiENTs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation/atrial NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ATHENA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O O
CV NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
or NN O O
death NN O O
from NN O O
any NN O O
cause NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
dronedarone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
of NN O O
CV NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dronedarone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
ATHENA NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
4628 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal/persistent NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dronedarone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dronedarone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O O
non-CV NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.77 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

About NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CV NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
AF-related NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
four NN O O
nights NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
for NN O O
AF NN O O
[ NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
) NN O O
0.626 NN O O
( NN O O
0.546-0.719 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
dronedarone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Dronedarone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
coronary NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0105 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O I-OUT
AF/atrial NN O I-OUT
flutter NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
hospitalization/death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hospitalization NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cumulative NN O O
incidence NN O O
data NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
dronedarone NN O I-INT
persisted NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Dronedarone NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
CV NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
under NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
# NN O O
NCT NN O O
00174785 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21600592)

Standardized NN O O
preoperative NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
neonates NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
A NN O O
heightened NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
occurs NN O O
after NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
perioperative NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
glucocorticoids NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
advocated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
postoperative NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
perioperative NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
neonatal NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
preoperative NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O O
would NN O O
improve NN O O
postoperative NN O O
recovery NN O O
in NN O O
neonates NN O O
requiring NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Neonates NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O O
2-dose NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
operatively NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
single-dose NN O O
( NN O O
operatively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-INT
37 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
score NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
death NN O O
36 NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Preoperative NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
2-fold NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2-dose NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
46 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
( NN O O
17/37 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
single-dose NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
15/39 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2-dose NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.51 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two-dose NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.61 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
0.18 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
vs NN O O
0.53 NN O O
? NN O O
0.12 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
poorer NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
diuresis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-96 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
49 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Inotropic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Combined NN O O
preoperative NN O O
and NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
glucocorticoids NN O O
in NN O O
neonatal NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
favorably NN O O
affect NN O O
early NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
exacerbate NN O O
perioperative NN O O
renal NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21621992)

Lung NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
respiratory NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
1-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
varenicline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
There NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
data NN O O
concerning NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
respiratory NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
quitting NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
serial NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
spirometry NN O O
and NN O O
Clinical NN O O
COPD NN O O
Questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
CCQ NN O O
) NN O O
scores NN O O
( NN O O
measuring NN O O
respiratory NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
a NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
varenicline NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
followed NN O O
to NN O O
Week NN O O
52 NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
of NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
post-bronchodilator NN O I-OUT
forced NN O I-OUT
expired NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
s NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CCQ NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
post-bronchodilator NN O O
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
continuous NN O O
abstainers NN O O
( NN O O
121.8 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
continuous NN O O
smokers NN O O
( NN O O
37.9 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0069 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
Weeks NN O O
24 NN O O
or NN O O
52 NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
Week NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CCQ NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
continuous NN O O
abstainers NN O O
( NN O O
-1.04 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
continuous NN O O
smokers NN O O
( NN O O
-0.53 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
at NN O O
Weeks NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
52 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
1-year NN O O
cessation NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
continuous NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
smoking NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
post-bronchodilator NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
narrowed NN O O
subsequently NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CCQ NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
Scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
Week NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
sustained NN O O
improvement NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRY NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
; NN O O
trial NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00285012 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21639907)

Infliximab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ankylosing NN O O
spondylitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
? NN O O
A NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
modify NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetics NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ankylosing NN O O
spondylitis NN O O
( NN O O
AS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
infliximab NN O I-INT
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
axial NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
infliximab NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/week NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Infliximab NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
estimated NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
infliximab NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
0-18 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
evaluations NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Bath NN O I-OUT
Ankylosing NN O I-OUT
Spondylitis NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BASDAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
infliximab NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
group NN O O
: NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
507 NN O O
serum NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
infliximab NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-18 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
BASDAI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
infliximab NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
infliximab NN O O
over NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00507403 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21664757)

Positive NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
crisis NN O I-INT
resource NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
no-flow NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
team NN O O
member NN O O
verbalisations NN O O
during NN O O
simulated NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
video-based NN O I-INT
interactive NN O I-INT
crisis NN O I-INT
resource NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CRM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
no-flow NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NFT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
on NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
team NN O I-OUT
member NN O I-OUT
verbalisations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TMV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
simulated NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
team NN O O
leader NN O O
verbalisation NN O O
accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
NFT NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
embedded NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
obligatory NN O O
advanced NN O O
life NN O O
support NN O O
( NN O O
ALS NN O O
) NN O O
course NN O O
for NN O O
final-year NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
176 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
25.35?1.03 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
alphabetically NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
four-person NN O I-PAR
teams NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
( NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
) NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O I-INT
CRM NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=26 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
interactive NN O I-INT
video-based NN O I-INT
CRM-training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=18 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
ALS-training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
NFT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
proportions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TMV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
were NN O O
subdivided NN O O
into NN O O
eight NN O O
categories NN O O
: NN O O
four NN O O
team NN O O
leader NN O O
verbalisations NN O O
( NN O O
TLV NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
accuracy NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
follower NN O O
verbalisation NN O O
categories NN O O
( NN O O
FV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
administering NN O I-PAR
simulated NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
CPR NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
NFT NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CRM-training NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
31.4?6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
36.3?6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Proportions NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
TLV NN O I-OUT
categories NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CRM-training NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
FV NN O O
were NN O O
only NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
category NN O O
( NN O O
unsolicited NN O O
information NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.012 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
highest NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
NFT NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
for NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
TLV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
orders NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
CRM NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
undergraduate NN O O
medical NN O O
education NN O O
reduces NN O O
NFT NN O O
in NN O O
simulated NN O I-INT
CPR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
TLV NN O O
proportions NN O O
during NN O I-INT
simulated NN O I-INT
CPR NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Further NN O I-INT
research NN O O
will NN O O
test NN O O
how NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
translate NN O O
into NN O O
clinical NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21665462)

Single-agent NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
FOLFIRI NN O I-INT
as NN O O
second-line NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
DaVINCI NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
[ NN O O
corrected NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
for NN O O
advanced NN O O
or NN O O
metastatic NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
prolongs NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
whether NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
is NN O O
better NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
or NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fluoropyrimidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
compared NN O O
toxicity NN O O
( NN O O
particularly NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
irinotecan NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
DaVINCI NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
: NN O O
Combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FOLFIRI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
irinotecan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
180 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
IV NN O O
over NN O O
90 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
IV NN O O
bolus NN O O
and NN O O
2400 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
46-hour NN O O
infusion NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
folinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
IV NN O O
bolus NN O O
, NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2-weekly NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
Single-agent NN O O
, NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
350 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
IV NN O O
over NN O O
90 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3-weekly NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
every NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
; NN O O
QOL NN O O
and NN O O
response NN O O
6-weekly NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
amended NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
early NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
slow NN O O
recruitment NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
second-line NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
trials NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
We NN O O
randomised NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
agent NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
irinotecan NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
P=0.24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall-survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
systematic NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
second-line NN O O
irinotecan-based NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
single-agent NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alopecia NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
but NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Combination NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
single-agent NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
alopecia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
compromising NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
regimens NN O O
remain NN O O
as NN O O
reasonable NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Research NN O O
grant NN O O
( NN O O
Pfizer NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2168532)

Alternating NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
of NN O O
Goldie NN O O
and NN O O
Coldman NN O O
, NN O O
rapid NN O I-INT
cyclic NN O I-INT
alternating NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
supposed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
in NN O O
small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
approach NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
trials NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
70 NN O O
's NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
few NN O O
trials NN O O
performed NN O O
randomization NN O O
between NN O O
alternating NN O O
and NN O O
continuous NN O O
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O I-INT
common NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
controversial NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
interpretation NN O O
is NN O O
complicated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
trials NN O O
were NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
2-arm NN O O
approaches NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
CAV- NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
CMC-protocol NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
alternating NN O I-INT
schedule NN O I-INT
often NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
CAV- NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
CMC-derived NN O I-INT
combinations NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
cisplatinum NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
these NN O O
trials NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alternating NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
has NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
trials NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
clarify NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
advantage NN O O
was NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
of NN O O
alternating NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
drugs NN O O
given NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alternating NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
this NN O O
weakness NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
3-arms NN O O
approaches NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
alternating NN O O
protocols NN O O
as NN O O
continuous NN O O
control NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
one NN O O
investigation NN O O
noticed NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
alternating NN O O
schedule NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
others NN O O
observed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
studies NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
report NN O O
their NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
shifting NN O O
non-responding NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
continuous NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
second NN O O
line NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
longer NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
stayed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
protocol NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
favoured NN O O
the NN O O
alternating NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (21692873)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
haemato-immunological NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Labeo NN O I-PAR
rohita NN O I-PAR
fingerlings NN O I-PAR
reared NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
water NN O I-PAR
temperature NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
sixty-day NN O O
feeding NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
elucidate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hemato-immunological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Labeo NN O I-PAR
rohita NN O I-PAR
fingerlings NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
temperature NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ET NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
?C NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seventy NN O I-PAR
fingerlings NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6.71 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
0.32 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
distributed NN O O
into NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
triplicates NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
15 NN O O
fish/tank NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O I-INT
iso-nitrogenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
356.3 NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
2.7 NN O I-INT
g/kg NN O I-INT
crude NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
prepared NN O O
with NN O O
graded NN O O
levels NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
diet NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
PN NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
P10T26 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
PN NN O O
+ NN O O
ambient NN O O
temperature NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
?C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P0T33 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
mg NN O O
PN NN O O
+ NN O O
ET NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P10T33 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
PN NN O O
+ NN O O
ET NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P50T33 NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
PN NN O O
+ NN O O
ET NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P100T33 NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
PN NN O O
+ NN O O
ET NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
P200T33 NN O O
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
PN NN O O
+ NN O O
ET NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
responses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
L. NN O I-PAR
rohita NN O I-PAR
fingerlings NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
dietary NN O O
PN NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
analysing NN O O
some NN O O
hemato-immunological NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
PN NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-INT
from NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leucocyte NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
burst NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
PN/kg NN O I-INT
diet-fed NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
their NN O I-INT
non-PN-fed NN O I-INT
counterpart NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lysozyme NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
PN-fed NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
diet NN O O
may NN O O
reverse NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
effects NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
ET NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
protect NN O O
the NN O O
haemato-immunological NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
L. NN O I-PAR
rohita NN O I-PAR
fingerlings NN O I-PAR
reared NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
water NN O I-PAR
temperature NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21720441)

Beverage NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
solid NN O I-INT
fruits NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Beverage NN O O
consumption NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O O
gain NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
questions NN O O
remain NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
veracity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
is NN O O
causal NN O O
and NN O O
what NN O O
property NN O O
of NN O O
beverages NN O O
is NN O O
responsible NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
food NN O O
form NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
salient NN O O
attribute NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
form NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

Energy-matched NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
solid NN O I-INT
forms NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fruits NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
were NN O O
provided NN O O
to NN O O
34 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lean NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
overweight/obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
two NN O O
8-week NN O O
periods NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
washout NN O O
interspersed NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-OUT
compensation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
incomplete NN O O
( NN O O
beverage NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
solid NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
beverage NN O O
( NN O O
1.95 NN O O
? NN O O
0.33 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
fat NN O O
mass NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
solid NN O O
( NN O O
1.36 NN O O
? NN O O
0.30 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
fat NN O O
mass NN O O
) NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
between NN O O
food NN O O
forms NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lean NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
compensation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
119 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.84 NN O O
? NN O O
0.53 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
consuming NN O O
the NN O O
solid NN O O
fruits NN O O
and NN O O
vegetables NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
overweight/obese NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
compensation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
solid NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
1.77 NN O O
? NN O O
0.32 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
incomplete NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
compensation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
lean NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
1.61 NN O O
? NN O O
0.44 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
overweight/obese NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
2.22 NN O O
? NN O O
0.47 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
beverage NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
analyses NN O O
revealed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
gained NN O O
more NN O O
weight NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
lean NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
the NN O O
beverage NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
energy NN O O
consumed NN O O
as NN O O
beverages NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
especially NN O O
problematic NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
They NN O O
also NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
advice NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
fruit NN O O
and NN O O
vegetable NN O O
consumption NN O O
should NN O O
emphasize NN O O
total NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
energy NN O O
contributed NN O O
may NN O O
promote NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
especially NN O O
among NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21721430)

Validity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Siriraj NN O I-INT
Asthma NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
Questionnaire NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reliability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Siriraj NN O I-INT
Asthma NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
Questionnaire NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Asthma NN O O
Clinic NN O O
, NN O O
Siriraj NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
responses NN O O
and NN O O
spirometric NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
record NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
visits NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
subject NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
validation NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
scores NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
control NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
physicians NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
GINA NN O O
guideline NN O O
. NN O O

Internal NN O O
consistency NN O O
reliability NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
Cronbach NN O O
's NN O O
alpha NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sixty NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
from NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
29-73 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
40 NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
partly NN O O
controlled NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
5-items NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
6-items NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
physician-diagnosed NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
partly NN O O
controlled NN O O
and NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
5-items NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
2,15 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
6-items NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Internal NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
5-items NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
and NN O O
6-items NN O O
clinical NN O O
score NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
acceptable NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
0.829 NN O O
and NN O O
0.708 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

5-items NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
more NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
consistent NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
6-items NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
cutoff NN O O
point NN O O
at NN O O
2.5 NN O O
to NN O O
separate NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
from NN O O
controlled NN O O
or NN O O
partly NN O O
controlled NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
76.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
89.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
cutoff NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1.5 NN O O
to NN O O
separate NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
or NN O O
partly NN O O
controlled NN O O
from NN O O
controlled NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
70.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
85.0 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
validity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Siriraj NN O I-INT
Asthma NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
Questionnaire NN O I-INT
is NN O O
acceptable NN O O
and NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
research NN O O
in NN O O
Thai NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21788433)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
shearing NN O I-INT
on NN O O
water NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thermobiological NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
German NN O I-PAR
Blackhead NN O I-PAR
mutton NN O I-PAR
sheep NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Current NN O O
equations NN O O
for NN O O
estimating NN O O
water NN O O
requirements NN O O
in NN O O
sheep NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
differentiate NN O O
between NN O O
shorn NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
unshorn NN O I-PAR
sheep NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
shearing NN O O
on NN O O
thermoregulative NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
sheep NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
adequately NN O O
studied NN O O
under NN O O
temperate NN O I-PAR
environmental NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
wool NN O O
coverage NN O O
on NN O O
water NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
thermoregulation NN O O
in NN O O
sheep NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
deuterium NN O O
dilution NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
total NN O O
water NN O O
intake NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
shearing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Physiological NN O O
responses NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
water NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sheep NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Fourteen NN O I-PAR
nonlactating NN O I-PAR
German NN O I-PAR
Blackhead NN O I-PAR
mutton NN O I-PAR
ewes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
already NN O I-INT
shorn NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
left NN O I-INT
unshorn NN O I-INT
( NN O O
wool NN O O
length NN O O
: NN O O
10.6 NN O O
? NN O O
1.2 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Individual NN O I-OUT
feed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
experiment NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
71 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
measurements NN O O
commenced NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
sheep NN O O
were NN O O
shorn NN O O
. NN O O

Water NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
twice NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
weeks NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
deuterium NN O O
dilution NN O O
techniques NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
d NN O O
57 NN O O
to NN O O
71 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ambient NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
humidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O I-OUT
BW NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
animal NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
temperatures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
using NN O O
infrared NN O O
thermography NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
wool NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
weekly NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
treatment NN O O
sheep NN O O
were NN O O
unshorn NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
ewes NN O O
differed NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
DMI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
52 NN O O
? NN O O
4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
59 NN O O
? NN O O
4 NN O O
g?kg NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-0.75 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
?d NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
165 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
17 NN O O
vs. NN O O
134 NN O O
? NN O O
18 NN O O
g?kg NN O O
( NN O O
-0.75 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
?d NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
66 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
31 NN O O
? NN O O
4 NN O O
breath/min NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
39.3 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
0.2 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
38.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.1?C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
temperatures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
body NN O O
side NN O O
: NN O O
19.3 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
24.5 NN O O
? NN O O
0.6?C NN O O
; NN O O
leg NN O O
: NN O O
25.8 NN O O
? NN O O
2.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
27.4 NN O O
? NN O O
1.6?C NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
shearing NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
partly NN O O
disappeared NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O I-OUT
trend NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
isotope NN O O
dilution NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
temperatures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Even NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
temperate NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
28?C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
shearing NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
core NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
German NN O I-PAR
Blackhead NN O I-PAR
mutton NN O I-PAR
sheep NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
thus NN O I-PAR
indicating NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fleeced NN O I-OUT
animals NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
when NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
shearing NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
sheep NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
when NN O O
estimating NN O O
water NN O O
requirements NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21800222)

Nasal NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
oronasal NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
masks NN O I-INT
for NN O O
obstructive NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
apnea NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
pressure NN O O
requirement NN O O
, NN O O
residual NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
leak NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
nasal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oronasal NN O I-INT
masks NN O I-INT
in NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
continuous NN O O
positive NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
CPAP NN O O
) NN O O
requirement NN O O
, NN O O
residual NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
leak NN O O
when NN O O
treating NN O O
obstructive NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
apnea NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
if NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
upper NN O O
airway NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
currently NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
CPAP NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
?4 NN O I-PAR
h/night NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
examined NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
Mallampati NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
incisal NN O I-PAR
relationship NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mandibular NN O I-PAR
protrusion NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
auto-positive NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fixed NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
manually NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
week NN O O
each NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
immediate NN O O
crossover NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
each NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
nasal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
oronasal NN O I-INT
masks NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
nights NN O O
each NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
downloaded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
device NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
AHI NN O I-PAR
59.8 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
28.6 NN O I-PAR
events/h NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
CPAP NN O I-PAR
11.1 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
3.2 NN O I-PAR
cmH NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
O NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
37.7 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
5.0 NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O I-PAR
auto-PAP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
95th NN O I-OUT
percentile NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
all NN O O
masks NN O O
was NN O O
within NN O O
0.5 NN O O
cmH NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
O NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
CPAP NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
AHI NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.61 NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
= NN O O
1.18 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.70 NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
= NN O O
4.04 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O I-INT
oronasal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.48 NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
= NN O O
3.74 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O I-INT
oronasal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
95th NN O I-OUT
percentile NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lowest NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nasal NN O O
mask NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O O
CPAP NN O O
and NN O O
auto-PAP NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
pressure NN O O
or NN O O
residual NN O O
disease NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
upper NN O O
airway NN O O
shape NN O O
or NN O O
body NN O O
habitus NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
obese NN O O
OSA NN O O
patients NN O O
changing NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
nasal NN O O
to NN O I-INT
oronasal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
AHI NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
pressure NN O O
requirement NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
highlight NN O O
mask NN O O
leak NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
oronasal NN O I-INT
masks NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21802739)

MRI NN O I-OUT
signal NN O I-OUT
hyperintensities NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
remit NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
MRI NN O O
signal NN O O
hyperintensities NN O O
predict NN O O
poor NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
using NN O O
volumetrics NN O O
in NN O O
outpatient NN O O
samples NN O O
have NN O O
relied NN O O
on NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
remission NN O O
from NN O O
geriatric NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
depends NN O O
on NN O O
lesion NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
region NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
MRIs NN O I-INT
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
sertraline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nortriptyline NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
late-life NN O I-INT
depression NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MRIcro NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
MRI-hyperintensity NN O O
volume NN O O
into NN O O
total NN O O
hyperintensity NN O O
, NN O O
deep NN O O
white NN O O
matter NN O O
hyperintensity NN O O
( NN O O
DWMH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
periventricular NN O O
hyperintensity NN O O
( NN O O
PVH NN O O
) NN O O
volumes NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
versus NN O O
low NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
DWMH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PVH NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
defined NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
quartile NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
respective NN O O
distributions NN O O
. NN O O

Remission NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
24-item NN O O
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
7 NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
high NN O O
DWMH NN O O
were NN O O
7.14 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
remit NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
low NN O O
DWMH NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
odds NN O O
ratios NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
PVH NN O O
( NN O O
OR=4.17 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
volumes NN O O
( NN O O
OR=5.00 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
A NN O O
small NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
White NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
geriatric NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
depends NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
lesion NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
ROI NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
outpatient NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
odds NN O O
ratios NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
when NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
high NN O O
DWMH NN O O
, NN O O
PVH NN O O
or NN O O
total NN O O
volume NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
location NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
be NN O O
critical NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21833823)

Atypical NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
modulation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
imitation NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Appropriate NN O O
modulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
imitation NN O I-INT
according NN O O
to NN O O
social NN O O
context NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
successful NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
subliminally NN O O
primed NN O O
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASC NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IQ-matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pro- NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
non- NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
attitude NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Following NN O O
priming NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
automatic NN O O
imitation NN O O
paradigm NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
acquire NN O O
an NN O O
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Whereas NN O O
imitation NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
pro-socially NN O O
primed NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
non-socially NN O O
primed NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
pro- NN O O
and NN O O
non- NN O O
socially NN O O
primed NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASC NN O I-PAR
demonstrate NN O O
atypical NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
modulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Given NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
imitation NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
we NN O O
speculate NN O O
that NN O O
difficulties NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
imitation NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
problems NN O O
characteristic NN O O
of NN O O
ASC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2185565)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
Antonio NN O I-INT
Raichs NN O I-INT
memorial NN O I-INT
lecture NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Future NN O I-OUT
trends NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
transplantation NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21860188)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
amiodarone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatic NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
single-dose NN O O
intravenous NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
fixed NN O O
ventricular NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
( NN O O
AF NN O O
) NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
irritable NN O O
left NN O O
or NN O O
right NN O O
atrium NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
enlargement NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
valvular NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
I NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=28 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O O
ml NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
same NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
standardized NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

AF NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
7.14 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
28.57 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia/fibrillation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
21.43 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
46.43 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.089 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
aortic NN O O
clamp NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
92.86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
maintained NN O O
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
cardioversion NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
defibrillation NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
aortic NN O O
cross NN O O
clamp NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Defibrillation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cardio NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
needed NN O O
in NN O O
7.14 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
28.57 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.078 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
post NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
postoperative NN O O
arrhythmia NN O O
in NN O O
open NN O O
heart NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21864416)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Chinese NN O O
medical NN O O
herbs NN O O
complex NN O O
on NN O O
cellular NN O O
immunity NN O O
and NN O O
toxicity-related NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rose NN O I-INT
geranium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Pelargonium NN O O
graveolens NN O O
, NN O O
Geraniaceae NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
anti-cancer NN O O
and NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
promotes NN O O
wound NN O O
healing NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
Ganoderma NN O I-INT
tsugae NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Ganodermataceae NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Codonopsis NN O I-INT
pilosula NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Campanulaceae NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Angelica NN O I-INT
sinensis NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Apiaceae NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
traditional NN O O
Chinese NN O O
herbs NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
immunomodulatory NN O O
functions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
medicinal NN O I-INT
herb NN O I-INT
complex NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
RG-CMH NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
rose NN O I-INT
geranium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
extracts NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
G. NN O I-INT
tsugae NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
C. NN O I-INT
pilosula NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
A. NN O I-INT
sinensis NN O I-INT
, NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
leucopenia NN O O
and NN O O
immune NN O O
impairment NN O O
that NN O O
usually NN O O
occurs NN O O
during NN O O
cancer NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
fifty-eight NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immune NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
RG-CMH NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
RG-CMH NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leucocytes NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
31?5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
to NN O O
13?4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
RG-CMH NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neutrophils NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
35?6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
11?0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
RG-CMH NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

RG-CMH NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
helper NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cytotoxic NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
RG-CMH NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
chemotherapy/radiotherapy NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
capacity NN O O
to NN O O
delay NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
ease NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
leucocytes NN O O
and NN O O
neutrophils NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
cancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2187009)

Event-related NN O O
potentials NN O O
and NN O O
monoamines NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
event-related NN O I-INT
potentials NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ERPs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
from NN O O
7 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
an NN O O
attention-demanding NN O O
auditory NN O O
choice NN O O
reaction NN O O
time NN O O
task NN O O
( NN O O
ACRT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ACRT NN O O
, NN O O
IQ NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
fenfluramine NN O O
treatment NN O O
blood NN O O
serotonin NN O O
levels NN O O
fell NN O O
, NN O O
urinary NN O O
catecholamine NN O O
levels NN O O
fell NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
HVA/DA NN O O
ratio NN O O
rose NN O O
. NN O O

IQ NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ACRT NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
ACRT NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
press NN O O
a NN O O
button NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
rare NN O O
target NN O O
( NN O O
500 NN O O
Hz NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
ignore NN O O
higher NN O O
pitched NN O O
rare NN O O
( NN O O
2,000 NN O O
Hz NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
frequent NN O O
non-targets NN O O
( NN O O
1,000 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
N1 NN O I-OUT
latencies NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
scalp NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
maxima NN O O
changes NN O O
slightly NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

P3 NN O I-OUT
maxima NN O I-OUT
elicited NN O O
by NN O O
rare NN O O
non-targets NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
more NN O O
rostrally NN O O
after NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
rare NN O O
non-targets NN O O
N1 NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
Fz NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
but NN O O
P3 NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
Pz NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
negativity NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
rare NN O O
non-target NN O O
( NN O O
particularly NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
side NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
negatively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
HVA/DA NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

Subtraction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
P3 NN O O
component NN O O
elicited NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
passive NN O O
condition NN O O
where NN O O
no NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
required NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
condition NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
P3 NN O I-OUT
positivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
targets NN O O
was NN O O
halved NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
Nd NN O O
increased NN O O
on NN O O
fenfluramine NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
N1 NN O O
and NN O O
P3 NN O O
components NN O O
showed NN O O
greatest NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
rare NN O O
non-targets NN O O
on NN O O
fenfluramine NN O O
. NN O O

N1 NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
P3 NN O O
changes NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
slight NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
attention-related NN O O
function NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Small NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
ERP NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
partly NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
mild NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
IQ NN O O
and NN O O
ACRT NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21887489)

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O O
, NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
juvenile NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
juvenile NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
JIA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cross-sectional NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
design NN O O
including NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
JIA NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sociodemographic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-day NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
diary NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
screened NN O O
by NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
Screen NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Child NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Related NN O I-OUT
Emotional NN O I-OUT
Disorders NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SCARED NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Depression NN O I-INT
Inventory NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CDI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Functional NN O O
ability NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-INT
Childhood NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
Questionnaire NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CHAQ NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12.13 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2.92 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11.27 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1.59 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
64 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
JIA NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
CHAQ NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
JIA NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
relationships NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.30 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
between NN O O
SCARED NN O O
and NN O O
CDI NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.54 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
relationships NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CDI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.29 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CHAQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.37 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.41 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Correlation NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
CHAQ NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CDI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.34 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
JIA NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21909698)

Randomised NN O O
multicentre NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
circular NN O I-INT
stapling NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
register NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
circular NN O I-INT
stapling NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
brands NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
those NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
able NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
give NN O I-PAR
informed NN O I-PAR
consent NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Perioperative NN O O
randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
Ethicon? NN O I-INT
PROXIMATE? NN O I-INT
ILS? NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Autosuture? NN O I-INT
Premium NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
CEEA? NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Anastomotic NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
manifest NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
anastomoses NN O O
created NN O O
by NN O O
PROXIMATE? NN O I-INT
ILS? NN O I-OUT
leaked NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
25/265 NN O O
( NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
anastomoses NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Premium NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
CEEA? NN O I-INT
leaked NN O I-INT
in NN O O
19/260 NN O O
( NN O O
7.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.419 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
leak NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
could NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
revealed NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
centres NN O O
replaced NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
staplers NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
product NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
ended NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
stipulated NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
reached NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
, NN O O
surgical NN O O
devices NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
prove NN O I-OUT
superiority NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
randomised NN O O
trials NN O O
or NN O O
be NN O O
monitored NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O O
registers NN O O
before NN O O
they NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
introduced NN O O
into NN O O
day NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
surgical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00399009 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21938889)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-INT
instrumental NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
performance NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endurance NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-perceived NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-perceived NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
inpatients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Neurologic NN O I-INT
Music NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
sensory-motor NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Therapeutic NN O I-INT
Instrumental NN O I-INT
Music NN O I-INT
Performance NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TIMP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Traditional NN O I-INT
Occupational NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TOT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
endurance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-perceived NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-perceived NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
musical NN O O
experience NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
TIMP NN O I-INT
with NN O O
musical NN O O
cueing NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
rhythmic NN O O
auditory NN O O
cueing NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
physical NN O O
exercises NN O O
influences NN O O
one NN O O
's NN O O
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
neurologic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
recently NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
orthopedic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Investigators NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
TOT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
TIMP NN O I-INT
during NN O O
upper NN O I-INT
extremity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
affected NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
stronger NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-INT
extremity NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O I-INT
TIMP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
TOT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
TIMP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
TOT NN O I-INT
when NN O O
measuring NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
perceived NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TIMP NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
TOT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TIMP NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
foran NN O O
effective NN O O
sensory-motor NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
perceived NN O O
exertion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
inpatients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21949005)

Learning NN O O
through NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
asocial-communication-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
a NN O O
social-communication-based NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O O
autism NN O O
intervention NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
51 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
community NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Families NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
each NN O O
week NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
emphasizing NN O O
social-interaction NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
parent-child NN O I-INT
relationship NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
averaging NN O I-INT
3.9 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
skills NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
language NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
made NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Initiation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
involvement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
delay NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Finally NN O O
caregiver NN O O
skills NN O O
targeted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2195054)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
a NN O O
12 NN O O
month NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
On NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
lost NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
serotonin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
dopamine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
homovanillic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HVA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
tests NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
achieve NN O O
overall NN O O
statistical NN O I-OUT
significance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Event-related NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
potentials NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ERPs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O O
subjects NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
auditory NN O O
choice NN O O
reaction NN O O
time NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
included NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lethargy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fenfluramine NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
place NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21950736)

Polymorphisms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ADORA2A NN O I-PAR
modulate NN O I-PAR
psychomotor NN O I-PAR
vigilance NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
caffeine NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
neurobehavioural NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
deprivation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Prolonged NN O O
wakefulness NN O O
impairs NN O O
sustained NN O O
vigilant NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PVT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
induces NN O O
a NN O O
compensatory NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
sleep NN O O
intensity NN O O
in NN O O
recovery NN O O
sleep NN O O
, NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
slow-wave NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SWA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
electroencephalogram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

These NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
are NN O O
counteracted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
adenosine NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
caffeine NN O O
, NN O O
implying NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adenosine NN O O
neuromodulator/receptor NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
examine NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
adenosine NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
2A NN O O
) NN O O
receptors NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
variation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
2A NN O O
) NN O O
receptor NN O O
gene NN O O
( NN O O
ADORA2A NN O O
) NN O O
modified NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
PVT NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
SWA NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
sleep NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
APPROACH NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
haplotype NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
single-nucleotide NN O I-PAR
polymorphisms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ADORA2A NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
carrying NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
allele NN O I-PAR
combinations NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-INT
waking NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
modafinil NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
psychomotor NN O I-INT
vigilance NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sleepiness NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
waking NN O I-INT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
KEY NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Throughout NN O O
extended NN O O
wakefulness NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
carriers NN O O
of NN O O
haplotype NN O O
HT4 NN O O
performed NN O O
faster NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
PVT NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
carriers NN O O
of NN O O
non-HT4 NN O O
haplotype NN O O
alleles NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
haplotype NN O O
HT4 NN O O
, NN O O
caffeine NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
counteract NN O O
the NN O O
waking-induced NN O O
impairment NN O O
of NN O O
PVT NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
rebound NN O O
of NN O O
SWA NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O O
sleep NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
effective NN O O
in NN O O
non-HT4 NN O O
allele NN O O
carriers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
modafinil NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
prolonged NN O O
waking NN O O
, NN O O
independently NN O O
of NN O O
ADORA2A NN O O
haplotype NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Common NN O O
genetic NN O O
variation NN O O
of NN O O
ADORA2A NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
rested NN O O
and NN O O
sleep-deprived NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
also NN O O
modulates NN O O
individual NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
adenosine NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
2A NN O O
) NN O O
receptors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
wakefulness NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
vigilant NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2195532)

[ NN O O
Methodologic NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
polyfrequency NN O I-INT
oscillation NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
, NN O O
transcutaneous NN O O
oxygen NN O O
pressure NN O O
measurement NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
plethysmography NN O O
in NN O O
bronchial NN O I-PAR
provocation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
methacholine NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
bronchial NN O I-PAR
provocation NN O I-PAR
challenge NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
metacholin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
randomised NN O O
sequence NN O O
lung NN O O
function NN O O
analysis NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bodyplethysmograph NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Raw NN O O
, NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
polyfrequent NN O O
oscillation NN O O
method NN O O
( NN O O
resistance NN O O
, NN O O
reactance NN O O
between NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
52 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O O
tc-PO2 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
continuously NN O O
. NN O O

Correlations NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O O
at NN O O
PD60 NN O O
sGaw NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variability NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
reactivity NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Medium NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
oscillatory NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Raw NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
for NN O O
tc-PO2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Raw NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
markedly NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
percentage NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
reactance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
value NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
Raw NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variability NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
reactance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
Raw NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Interindividual NN O O
variability NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
reactance NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
oscillatory NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Raw NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
respect NN O O
of NN O O
reactivity NN O O
, NN O O
reactance NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
evaluation NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
bodyplethysmography NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
polyfrequent NN O I-INT
oscillation NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
( NN O O
reactance NN O O
or NN O O
resonance NN O O
frequency NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
comparably NN O O
sensitive NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21975559)

Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
IV NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
subgroups NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glucocorticoid-induced NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
summarizes NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
on NN O O
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
different NN O I-PAR
subgroups NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glucocorticoid-induced NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
glucocorticoid-induced NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
. NN O O

Introduction NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
glucocorticoids NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
LS NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
different NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
subgroups NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
that NN O O
contributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
glucocorticoids NN O O
. NN O O

Methods NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
IV NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
stratified NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
glucocorticoids NN O I-INT
duration NN O O
[ NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
prevention NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
subpopulations NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
subgrouped NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
gender NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
menopausal NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prednisone NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
25-OH NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
LS NN O I-PAR
BMD NN O I-PAR
T-score NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
creatinine NN O I-PAR
clearance NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
At NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-OUT
LS NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
risedronate NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
? NN O O
74 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
65-74 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
subpopulation NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-OUT
LS NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-INT
risedronate NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
both NN O O
subpopulations NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
gender NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cumulative NN O O
prednisone NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
status NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
premenopausal NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
subpopulations NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O I-INT
risedronate NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
month NN O O
12 NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
LS NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Osteoporotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0189 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
osteopenic NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
subpopulation NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0305 NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
LS NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
increases NN O O
with NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
risedronate NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
month NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Conclusions NN O O
This NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
increasing NN O I-OUT
LS NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
glucocorticoid-induced NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
across NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21987240)

Oral NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
Roux-en-Y NN O I-INT
gastric NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Roux-en-Y NN O I-INT
gastric NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
performed NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
morbid NN O O
obesity NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
anatomical NN O O
alteration NN O O
may NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
consequently NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O O
single NN O O
standard NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
occasions NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

Serial NN O O
venous NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
and NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
HPLC NN O O
method NN O O
with NN O O
fluorescence NN O O
detection NN O O
. NN O O

[ NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
database NN O O
( NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01130922 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

] NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
oral NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
reached NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
3.38 NN O O
? NN O O
1.41 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
after NN O O
1.75 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
0.75-4.00 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
4.53 NN O O
? NN O O
1.43 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
and NN O O
1.03 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
0.75-2.50 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
extrapolated NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
infinity NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
46.2 NN O O
? NN O O
1.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
? NN O O
h/L NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
dosing NN O O
and NN O O
52.3 NN O O
? NN O O
1.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
? NN O O
h/L NN O O
after NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
88.32 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
85.64 NN O O
% NN O O
-91.08 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
equivalent NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
dosages NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
But NN O O
these NN O O
exposures NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
described NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
without NN O O
gastric NN O O
bypass NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
enterohepatic NN O O
recirculation NN O O
of NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21996146)

Residual NN O O
platelet NN O O
reactivity NN O O
, NN O O
bleedings NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
stent NN O I-PAR
implantation NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prasugrel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recent NN O O
guidelines NN O O
have NN O O
recommended NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O O
and NN O O
prasugrel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
prasugrel NN O I-INT
use NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
real-world NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
prasugrel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
298 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
prasugrel NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Indications NN O O
to NN O O
prasugrel NN O O
therapy NN O O
were NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
ST-elevation NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
drug-eluting NN O O
stent NN O O
implantation NN O O
in NN O O
diabetics NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
stent NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
left NN O O
main NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
drug-eluting NN O O
stent NN O O
implantation NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
residual NN O O
platelet NN O O
reactivity NN O O
on NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
loading NN O O
of NN O I-INT
prasugrel NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
?75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
?60 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
maintenance NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
including NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
prasugrel NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
by NN O O
telephone NN O O
interviews NN O O
or NN O O
outpatient NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

Minimal NN O O
follow-up NN O O
length NN O O
was NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
9 NN O O
? NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
minor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minimal NN O I-OUT
bleedings NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Thrombolysis NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
Infarction NN O O
criteria NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
2.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
4.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Low NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
female NN O O
gender NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.29 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
minimal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
event NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
epistaxis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O I-OUT
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
2.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
permanently NN O O
discontinued NN O O
prasugrel NN O O
therapy NN O O
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
possible NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
medical NN O I-OUT
decisions NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fourteen NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
4.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
temporarily NN O I-OUT
discontinued NN O I-OUT
prasugrel NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
average NN O O
6.5 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
mainly NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
definite NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
probable NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
develop NN O I-OUT
de NN O I-OUT
novo NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
11 NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
refractory NN O I-OUT
cardiogenic NN O I-OUT
shock NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
prasugrel NN O O
therapy NN O O
are NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
minimal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
reported NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22001361)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
recruited NN O O
melanoma NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
project NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Examination NN O O
of NN O O
families NN O I-PAR
represents NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
priority NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
family-level NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
enrollment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cancer NN O O
prevention NN O O
research NN O O
project NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
approached NN O O
families NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
possible NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
web-based NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
recruited NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
case NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first-degree NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FDR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
parent NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recruitment NN O O
involved NN O O
three NN O O
steps NN O O
: NN O O
requesting NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
's NN O O
consent NN O O
to NN O O
approach NN O O
the NN O O
melanoma NN O O
case NN O O
, NN O O
approaching NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
to NN O O
request NN O O
their NN O O
participation NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O O
contact NN O O
information NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
approaching NN O O
the NN O O
FDRs NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
1380 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
approached NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
313 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
263 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
find NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
contact NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
member NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FDR NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
parent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
331 NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
473 NN O I-PAR
refused NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
refusal NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
being NN O O
too NN O O
busy NN O O
or NN O O
having NN O O
no NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
participation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
OR=1.6 NN O O
; NN O O
CI=1.01-2.51 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
FDRs NN O O
( NN O O
OR=2.15 NN O O
; NN O O
CI=1.11-4.13 NN O O
) NN O O
included NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
attainment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FDRs NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
enroll NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
female NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=1.77 NN O O
; NN O O
CI=1.1-.85 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
enroll NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
diagnosed NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
recently NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=3.3 NN O O
; NN O O
CI=1.9-5.93 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
partnered NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=4.37 NN O O
; NN O O
CI=1.86-10.26 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
lived NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
same NN O I-OUT
city NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
case NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=2.88 NN O O
; NN O O
CI=1.08-7.68 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
can NN O O
provide NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
potential NN O O
directions NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
family NN O O
recruitment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22001391)

Multi-institutional NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacogenomic NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
tipifarnib NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myelogenous NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tipifarnib NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
) NN O O
exhibits NN O O
modest NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myelogenous NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Based NN O O
on NN O O
preclinical NN O O
synergy NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
T NN O O
plus NN O O
etoposide NN O O
( NN O O
E NN O O
) NN O O
yielded NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
CR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
selected NN O O
2 NN O O
comparable NN O O
dose NN O O
levels NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
84 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
70-90 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
candidates NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Arm NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
? NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
E NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
days NN O O
1-3 NN O O
and NN O O
8-10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
? NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
E NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
days NN O O
1-3 NN O O
and NN O O
8-10 NN O O
) NN O O
yielded NN O O
similar NN O O
CR NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
day NN O O
30 NN O O
death NN O O
rate NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
2-gene NN O O
signature NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
RASGRP1 NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
aprataxin NN O O
( NN O O
APTX NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O O
previously NN O O
predicted NN O O
for NN O O
T NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Assays NN O O
using NN O O
blasts NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
T NN O O
plus NN O O
E NN O O
on NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
AMLs NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
RASGRP1/APTX NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
5.2 NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
CR NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
ratio NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
41 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
chemotherapies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
next NN O O
T-based NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
will NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2-gene NN O O
signature NN O O
to NN O O
enrich NN O O
for NN O O
T NN O O
responders NN O O
prospectively NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
as NN O O
# NN O O
NCT00602771 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22006202)

A NN O O
phase NN O O
IIb NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
JAK NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CP-690,550 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
background NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
methotrexate NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
6 NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CP-690,550 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
background NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
MTX NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
24-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
IIb NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
507 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O I-OUT
College NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Rheumatology NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ACR20 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
ACR20 NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
all NN O O
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
dosages NN O O
?3 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
52.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
50.7 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
58.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
56.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
53.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
? NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
33.3 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Improvements NN O O
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ACR20 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ACR50 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ACR70 NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
Health NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
3-variable NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
28 NN O I-OUT
joints NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DAS28-CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
3-variable NN O I-OUT
DAS28-CRP NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
2.6 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
most NN O O
common NN O O
treatment-emergent NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
> NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
tofacitinib NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
21 NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sporadic NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
transaminase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
has NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O O
dosage NN O O
?3 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
showed NN O O
sustained NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
manageable NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
over NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22035883)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
double- NN O O
and NN O O
single-dose NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
protocols NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ectopic NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
efficacy NN O O
between NN O O
double-dose NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
single-dose NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
tubal NN O O
ectopic NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
( NN O O
EP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2011,157 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
tubal NN O I-PAR
EP NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
non-laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
hemodynamically NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Qassim NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Saudi NN O I-PAR
Arabia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
double-dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intramuscularly NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
single-dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intramuscularly NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O O
human NN O O
chorionic NN O O
gonadotropin NN O O
( NN O O
?-hCG NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
until NN O O
negative NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
88.6 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
82.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follow NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
?-hCG NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Receiver NN O O
operative NN O O
characteristics NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
higher NN O O
cut-off NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
?-hCG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gestational NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
initial NN O O
?-hCG NN O O
of NN O O
3600-5500 NN O O
mIU/mL NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
EP NN O O
, NN O O
double-dose NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
; NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
success NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
moderately NN O O
high NN O O
?-hCG NN O O
and NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22045826)

Single NN O I-INT
negative NN O I-INT
colposcopy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
is NN O O
it NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
rule NN O O
out NN O O
high-grade NN O O
disease NN O O
? NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
colposcopic NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
intraepithelial NN O I-PAR
neoplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CIN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
colposcopic NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
routine NN O O
screening NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
visit NN O O
being NN O O
three NN O O
or NN O O
five NN O O
years NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
present NN O O
data NN O O
regarding NN O O
551 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
colposcopy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Wales NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low-grade NN O I-PAR
cytological NN O I-PAR
abnormality NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
Cervical NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O I-PAR
Wales NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
subsequent NN O I-PAR
CIN NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
436 NN O O
women NN O O
declared NN O O
CIN NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
initially NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
( NN O O
6.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
high-grade NN O I-OUT
CIN NN O I-OUT
diagnosed NN O O
on NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
additional NN O O
screening NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
offered NN O O
to NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
colposcopy NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
CIN NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22066521)

Feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
obesity NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
paediatric NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
targeting NN O O
parenting NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Helping NN O I-PAR
HAND NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
setting NN O O
offers NN O O
the NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
encourage NN O O
healthy NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
behaviours NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
weight NN O O
status NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Test NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
Helping NN O O
HAND NN O O
( NN O O
Healthy NN O O
Activity NN O O
and NN O O
Nutrition NN O O
Directions NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
obesity NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
5- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
Helping NN O I-INT
HAND NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
targeted NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
85-99 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
tile NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O O
group NN O O
attended NN O O
monthly NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
self-selected NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
behaviours NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parenting NN O I-INT
practices NN O I-INT
to NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
paediatric NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
wait-listed NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Helping NN O I-INT
HAND NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Session NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
participant NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
anthropometrics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TV NN O I-OUT
viewing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behaviour-specific NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
pre NN O O
and NN O O
post NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
parent-child NN O I-PAR
dyads NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
82.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
girl NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
income NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
$ NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
000/year NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
attrition NN O O
from NN O I-INT
Helping NN O I-INT
HAND NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
attended NN O O
< NN O O
4/6 NN O O
sessions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Families NN O O
self-selected NN O O
4.35 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
1.75 NN O O
) NN O O
behaviours NN O O
to NN O O
target NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
programme NN O O
and NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
seven NN O O
behaviours NN O O
was NN O O
selected NN O O
by NN O O
45-80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
z-score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
post NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intervention NN O O
group NN O O
viewed NN O O
14.9 NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
2.3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
h/week NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TV NN O I-OUT
post NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O O
versus NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
23.3 NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
2.4 NN O O
) NN O O
h/week NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Helping NN O O
HAND NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
, NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
low NN O O
attrition NN O O
, NN O O
good NN O O
programme NN O O
attendance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
child NN O O
and NN O O
parenting NN O O
behaviours NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22080777)

Instant NN O I-INT
Recess? NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
practical NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
school NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
An NN O O
increased NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
overweight/obesity NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
school NN O O
district NN O O
level NN O O
policies NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Interventions NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
that NN O O
increase NN O O
activity NN O O
levels NN O O
without NN O O
sacrificing NN O O
time NN O O
spent NN O O
in NN O O
academics NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
policy NN O I-INT
implementation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
in-school NN O I-INT
PA NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Forsyth NN O I-PAR
County NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Carolina NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
delayed NN O O
intervention NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
third- NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
fifth-grade NN O I-PAR
classrooms NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Instant NN O I-INT
Recess? NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O O
to NN O O
introduce NN O O
10-minute NN O I-INT
PA NN O I-INT
breaks NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
classrooms NN O O
on NN O O
schedules NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
teachers NN O O
. NN O O

Direct NN O O
observation NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
student NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
PA NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
classrooms NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-eight NN O O
visits NN O O
to NN O O
schools NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
spring NN O O
and NN O O
fall NN O O
semesters NN O O
of NN O O
2009 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
schools NN O O
were NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
classroom-based NN O I-INT
PA. NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
spring NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
intervention NN O O
schools NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
fall NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
schools NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
spring NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
once NN O I-OUT
they NN O O
began NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Students NN O O
in NN O O
classrooms NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
Instant NN O O
Recess NN O O
exhibited NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
light NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
51 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
moderate-intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
16 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
on-task NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
schools NN O O
experienced NN O O
similar NN O O
benefits NN O O
after NN O O
they NN O O
began NN O O
implementing NN O O
Instant NN O O
Recess NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Instant NN O O
Recess NN O O
is NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
elementary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Additional NN O O
research NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
create NN O O
policies NN O O
supporting NN O O
classroom NN O O
activity NN O O
breaks NN O O
and NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
policy NN O O
adherence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22082303)

Alkalinized NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
provide NN O O
immediate NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
urgency NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
interstitial NN O I-PAR
cystitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
alkalinized NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
can NN O O
immediately NN O O
relieve NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
urgency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
interstitial NN O O
cystitis NN O O
( NN O O
IC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
combination NN O O
has NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
relieve NN O O
pain NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
corroborate NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O I-PAR
participant NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Institute NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Digestive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Kidney NN O I-PAR
Diseases NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
excluding NN O I-PAR
cystoscopy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
IC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
patient NN O O
received NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
within NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
enrolling NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
11-point NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
global NN O O
assessment NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
GAR NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
12-hour NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
urgency NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
determined NN O O
from NN O O
11-point NN O O
urgency NN O O
scales NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
average NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
was NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0363 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GAR NN O O
was NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0137 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Average NN O O
urgency NN O O
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0328 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
alkalinized NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
and NN O O
heparin NN O O
provides NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
relief NN O O
from NN O O
urgency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
IC NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
combination NN O O
provides NN O O
significant NN O O
immediate NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22124576)

Growth NN O O
hormone NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
childhood-onset NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
childhood-onset NN O I-PAR
GH NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
cortical NN O O
bone NN O O
dimensions NN O O
also NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
GH NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
endosteal NN O O
expansion NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
cortical NN O O
thickness NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTRODUCTION NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
childhood-onset NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CO NN O I-PAR
GHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
GH NN O O
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
final NN O O
height NN O O
is NN O O
reached NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
spine NN O O
and NN O O
hip NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
21.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CO NN O I-PAR
GHD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
2:1 NN O O
to NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
24 NN O O
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cortical NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
digital NN O I-OUT
x-ray NN O I-OUT
radiogrammetry NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
metacarpal NN O O
bones NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
6.43 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CI NN O O
3.34 NN O O
to NN O O
9.61 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metacarpal NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MCI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6.14 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CI NN O O
3.95 NN O O
to NN O O
8.38 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
endosteal NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-4.64 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
, NN O O
CI NN O O
-7.15 NN O O
to NN O O
-2.05 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
0.68 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CI NN O O
-1.17 NN O O
to NN O O
2.57 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
gender NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
endosteal NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
MCI NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Cortical NN O O
bone NN O O
reacts NN O O
promptly NN O O
to NN O O
reinstitution NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
attainment NN O O
of NN O O
final NN O O
height NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
through NN O I-OUT
endosteal NN O O
bone NN O O
growth NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
leads NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
fragility NN O I-OUT
later NN O O
in NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22129897)

A NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
glutathione NN O O
supplementation NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Recent NN O O
evidence NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
glutathione NN O O
than NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
glutathione NN O O
supplements NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
their NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL/METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
eight-week NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
lipoceutical NN O I-INT
glutathione NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=13 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
transdermal NN O I-INT
glutathione NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=13 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3-13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
pre- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
post-treatment NN O I-PAR
lab NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxidized NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cysteine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
taurine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
sulfate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
whole-blood NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
oral NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
whole-blood NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
transdermal NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
sulfate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cysteine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
taurine NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
transdermal NN O O
glutathione NN O O
supplementation NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
some NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transsulfuration NN O O
metabolites NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
among NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
further NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
glutathione NN O O
supplementation NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
glutathione NN O O
supplementation NN O O
upon NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22131601)

MSLT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O O
insomnia NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
stability NN O O
and NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
stability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
multiple NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
latency NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MSLT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
insomnia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
its NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Outpatient NN O O
with NN O O
sleep NN O O
laboratory NN O O
assessments NN O O
in NN O O
months NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Ninety-five NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
insomniacs NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32-64 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sex-matched NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
representative NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
screening NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-INT
polysomnograms NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NPSG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MSLT NN O I-INT
the NN O O
following NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
insomnia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
zolpidem NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
45 NN O O
) NN O O
nightly NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
months NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
taking NN O O
their NN O O
prescribed NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
NPSGs NN O O
and NN O O
MSLTs NN O I-INT
the NN O O
following NN O O
day NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
population-based NN O O
sample NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
NPSG NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
MSLT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
MSLT NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insomniacs NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
normally NN O O
distributed NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
MSLT NN O I-INT
scores NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O O
representative NN O O
control NN O O
sample NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
insomniacs NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
screening NN O I-OUT
MSLTs NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
the NN O O
shortest NN O O
screening NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MSLTs NN O I-INT
of NN O O
insomniacs NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
month NN O O
1 NN O O
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
month NN O O
8 NN O O
MSLT NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
MSLT NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
zolpidem NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
stability NN O O
within NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
also NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
some NN O O
insomniacs NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
disorder NN O O
of NN O O
hyperarousal NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
increased NN O O
wake NN O I-OUT
drive NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
at NN O O
night NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22147942)

Predictive NN O O
and NN O O
prognostic NN O O
roles NN O O
of NN O O
BRAF NN O I-PAR
mutation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
intergroup NN O O
trial NN O O
CALGB NN O O
89803 NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Alterations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RAS-RAF-MAP2K NN O O
( NN O O
MEK NN O O
) NN O O
-MAPK NN O O
signaling NN O O
pathway NN O O
are NN O O
major NN O O
drivers NN O O
in NN O O
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinogenesis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
BRAF NN O O
mutation NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
microsatellite NN O O
instability NN O O
( NN O O
MSI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
typically NN O O
predicts NN O O
inferior NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
BRAF NN O O
mutation NN O O
on NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
status NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
BRAF NN O I-INT
c.1799T NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
p.V600E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
mutation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MSI NN O I-INT
in NN O O
506 NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FU/LV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
irinotecan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPT11 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
FU NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
LV NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
CALGB NN O O
89803 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
BRAF NN O O
mutation NN O O
, NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
features NN O O
, NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
MSI NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
431 NN O O
BRAF NN O O
wild-type NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O I-PAR
BRAF-mutated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O O
significantly NN O O
worse NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
log-rank NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
; NN O O
multivariate NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.66 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.05-2.63 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
assessing NN O O
combined NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
BRAF NN O O
and NN O O
MSI NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
seemed NN O O
that NN O O
BRAF-mutated NN O O
MSS NN O O
( NN O O
microsatellite NN O O
stable NN O O
) NN O O
tumor NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
subtype NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
BRAF NN O O
wild-type NN O O
MSI-high NN O O
tumor NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
subtype NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
BRAF-mutated NN O O
MSI-high NN O O
tumor NN O O
and NN O O
BRAF NN O O
wild-type NN O O
MSS NN O O
tumor NN O O
were NN O O
intermediate NN O O
subtypes NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
BRAF-mutated NN O O
tumors NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improved NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
FU/LV NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
multivariate NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
0.52 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.25-1.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
BRAF NN O O
wild-type NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
conferred NN O O
no NN O O
suggestion NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
beyond NN O O
FU/LV NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
multivariate NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.02 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.72-1.46 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
BRAF NN O O
mutation NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inferior NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Additional NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
any NN O O
predictive NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
BRAF NN O O
mutation NN O O
for NN O O
irinotecan-based NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22198983)

Granulocyte-colony NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
for NN O O
mobilizing NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
stem NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
subacute NN O O
stroke NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
recovery NN O I-PAR
enhancement NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Granulocyte-colony NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
neuroprotective NN O O
in NN O O
experimental NN O O
stroke NN O O
and NN O O
mobilizes NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
stem NN O O
cells NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
circulation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
in NN O O
recent NN O O
stroke NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
IIb NN O O
single-center NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
?g/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ratio NN O O
2:1 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hemorrhagic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD34 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

MRI NN O O
assessed NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
atrophy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
iron-labeled NN O I-OUT
CD34 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
reinjected NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
6 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
post NN O I-PAR
ictus NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
groups NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
matched NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
minimization/prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
differences NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
15 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
37.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
Rankin NN O O
Score NN O O
: NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
3.3 NN O O
? NN O O
1.3 NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
3.0 NN O I-INT
? NN O O
1.3 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
90 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
received NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
CD34 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
9.5- NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
4.2-fold NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MRI NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
respect NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
G-CSF-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
P=0.06 NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
1 NN O O
participant NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
suggestion NN O O
that NN O O
labeled NN O I-OUT
CD34 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
migrated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ischemic NN O O
lesion NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
safe NN O I-INT
when NN O O
administered NN O O
subacutely NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
to NN O O
label NN O O
and NN O O
readminister NN O O
iron-labeled NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CLINICAL NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
URL NN O O
: NN O O
www.controlled-trials.com NN O O
. NN O O

Unique NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
ISRCTN63336619 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22238957)

[ NN O O
Pharmacological NN O O
correction NN O O
of NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
radical NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endotoxicosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diffuse NN O I-PAR
peritonitis NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
examination NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
64 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-INT
antioxidant NN O I-INT
cytoflavin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diffuse NN O I-PAR
peritonitis NN O I-PAR
allows NN O O
the NN O O
hypoxia NN O O
degree NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
decreased NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
turn NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
quicker NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peroxidation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endotoxicosis NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
diffuse NN O O
peritonitis NN O O
with NN O O
cytoflavin NN O I-INT
included NN O O
in NN O O
intensive NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
shorter NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
artificial NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
shorter NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
staying NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
critical NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
course NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2225700)

Mefloquine NN O I-INT
kinetics NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
cured NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
recrudescent NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
falciparum NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mefloquine NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetics NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Thailand NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
1500 NN O O
mg NN O O
mefloquine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
750 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
1500 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
750 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cured NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
750 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
mefloquine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
peak NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
whom NN O O
treatment NN O O
failed NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
mefloquine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
from NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Mefloquine NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
and NN O O
variable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
noninfected NN O O
volunteers NN O O
, NN O O
clinically NN O O
ill NN O O
patients NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
delayed NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
mefloquine NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
750 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
1500 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Mefloquine NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Because NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
temporal NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
illness NN O O
, NN O O
mefloquine NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
distribution NN O O
or NN O O
clearance NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
illness NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22277402)

[ NN O I-PAR
Branch NN O I-PAR
atheromatous NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O O
and NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SPS3 NN O I-INT
experience NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22294238)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
ziprasidone NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
6-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
investigating NN O O
possible NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
ziprasidone NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
72 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
ziprasidone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
treated NN O O
prospectively NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
remission NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
including NN O O
Montgomery NN O I-OUT
Asberg NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variables NN O O
under NN O O
investigation NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p-values NN O O
> NN O O
0.003 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Further NN O O
investigations NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
clear NN O O
limitations NN O O
, NN O O
mostly NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
concomitant NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22342106)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
An NN O O
imbalance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
excitatory/inhibitory NN O O
systems NN O O
with NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
glutamatergic NN O O
pathways NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiology NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
chronic NN O O
redox NN O O
imbalance NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
recently NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
glutamatergic NN O O
modulator NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
disturbance NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
NAC NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
NAC NN O I-INT
were NN O O
initiated NN O O
at NN O O
900 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
900 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
900 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
behavioral NN O O
measure NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Repetitive NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Scale-Revised NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Responsiveness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3.2-10.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
was NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
NAC NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Oral NN O O
NAC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
limited NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
on NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
6.80 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
; NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
.96 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Data NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
investigation NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
NAC NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
irritability NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Large NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
investigations NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22344198)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
depot NN O O
11.25 NN O O
milligrams NN O O
or NN O O
30 NN O O
milligrams NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O I-PAR
precocious NN O I-PAR
puberty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
GnRH NN O O
agonist NN O O
( NN O O
GnRHa NN O O
) NN O O
monthly NN O O
injections NN O O
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O I-PAR
precocious NN O I-PAR
puberty NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CPP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
3-month NN O I-INT
leuprolide NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
11.25- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30-mg NN O O
formulations NN O O
are NN O O
newly NN O O
approved NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
depot NN O O
formulations NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
CPP NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
6-month NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
U.S. NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
Puerto NN O I-PAR
Rico NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CPP NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
naive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GnRHa NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Chronological NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pubertal NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
chronological NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
( NN O O
11.25 NN O O
or NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
im NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Biochemical NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
peak-stimulated NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
girls NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
boys NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
acceleration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pubertal NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Peak-stimulated NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
suppressed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
11.25- NN O O
and NN O O
30-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
78.4 NN O O
and NN O O
95.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
from NN O O
months NN O O
2 NN O O
through NN O O
6 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
nine NN O O
treatment NN O O
failures NN O O
( NN O O
peak-stimulated NN O O
LH NN O O
> NN O O
4 NN O O
IU/liter NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
11.25-mg NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
30-mg NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pubertal NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
advancement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
3-month NN O O
depot NN O O
formulations NN O O
( NN O O
11.25 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
effectively NN O O
suppressed NN O O
the NN O O
GnRH NN O O
axis NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
positively NN O O
impact NN O O
patient NN O O
convenience NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22348801)

Virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
pain NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
burn NN O I-PAR
wound NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Effective NN O O
pain NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
remains NN O O
a NN O O
challenge NN O O
for NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
conscious NN O I-PAR
burn NN O I-PAR
wound NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
shows NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
non-pharmacological NN O O
adjunct NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
off-the-shelf NN O I-INT
VR NN O I-INT
for NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
reducing NN O O
acute NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
during NN O O
adolescent NN O O
burn NN O O
wound NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
its NN O O
clinical NN O O
utility NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
busy NN O O
hospital NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty-one NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Acute NN O O
pain NN O O
outcomes NN O O
including NN O O
adolescent NN O O
self-report NN O O
, NN O O
nursing NN O O
staff NN O O
behavioral NN O O
observation NN O O
, NN O O
caregiver NN O O
observation NN O O
and NN O O
physiological NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

Length NN O O
of NN O O
procedure NN O O
times NN O O
and NN O O
adolescent NN O O
reactions NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
to NN O O
inform NN O O
clinical NN O O
utility NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Nursing NN O O
staff NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
dressing NN O O
removal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Entonox NN O I-OUT
given NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
VR NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
standard NN O O
distraction NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
other NN O O
pain NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
lower NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
VR NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Despite NN O O
only NN O O
minimal NN O O
pain NN O O
reduction NN O O
achieved NN O O
using NN O O
off-the-shelf NN O O
VR NN O I-INT
, NN O O
other NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
previous NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
younger NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
burns NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
customized NN O O
, NN O O
adolescent NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
friendly NN O O
device NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22377512)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
active-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
paliperidone NN O I-INT
extended-release NN O O
as NN O O
maintenance NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bipolar NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
manic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Paliperidone NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
acute NN O O
mania NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
3-week NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bipolar NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
investigating NN O O
maintenance NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=766 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
inclusive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
manic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
4:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
flexibly-dosed NN O O
paliperidone NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3-12 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5-20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
; NN O O
3-week NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
responders NN O O
continued NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
12-week NN O O
continuation NN O O
phase NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
paliperidone NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
who NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
this NN O O
phase NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
paliperidone NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=152 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=148 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
continued NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
that NN O O
at NN O O
fixed NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
n=83 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
maintenance NN O O
phase NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
: NN O O
558 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O I-INT
paliperidone NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
283 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
recurrence NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
with NN O O
paliperidone NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.017 NN O O
; NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
weighted NN O O
Z-test NN O O
at NN O O
0.0198 NN O O
significance NN O O
level NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
placebo NN O O
: NN O O
paliperidone NN O O
ER NN O O
; NN O O
unweighted NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
1.43 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.03 NN O O
; NN O O
1.98 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
manic NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
depressive NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment-emergent NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
paliperidone NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Responder-enriched NN O O
design NN O O
prevents NN O O
extrapolation NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
stabilized NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
paliperidone NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Paliperidone NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
delayed NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
mood NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bipolar NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
new NN O O
safety NN O O
concerns NN O O
emerged NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22382875)

Infrared NN O I-INT
LED NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
during NN O O
high-intensity NN O O
treadmill NN O O
training NN O O
improves NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Reduced NN O O
aerobic NN O O
fitness NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
diseases NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
LED NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
850 NN O O
nm NN O O
) NN O O
applied NN O O
during NN O O
treadmill NN O O
training NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
women NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
LED NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
associated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
phototherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sedentary NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
neither NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
nor NN O I-INT
phototherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
at NN O O
intensities NN O O
between NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
maximal NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
HRmax NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
irradiation NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
39 NN O O
mW/cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
108 NN O O
J/cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
expected NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sedentary NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
? NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Tlim NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
equivalents NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
METs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Bruce NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
reached NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
LED NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
double NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Borg NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
isotime NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LED NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LED NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Tlim NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
METs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
isotime NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LED NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
intergroup NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
infrared NN O I-INT
LED NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
during NN O O
treadmill NN O O
training NN O I-OUT
can NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-exercise NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
postmenopausal NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22401811)

Efficiency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
slush NN O I-INT
nitrogen NN O I-INT
vitrification NN O I-INT
of NN O O
human NN O O
oocytes NN O O
vitrified NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
cumulus NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
meiotic NN O I-OUT
spindle NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
slush NN O I-INT
nitrogen NN O I-INT
vitrification NN O I-INT
of NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
oocytes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
cumulus NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
meiotic NN O I-OUT
spindle NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Medical NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
274 NN O I-PAR
oocytes NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
couples NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Metaphase NN O O
II NN O O
oocytes NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
vitrified NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
cumulus NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
meiotic NN O I-OUT
spindle NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
immediately NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
warming NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
incubation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
detectable NN O I-OUT
spindle NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
completely NN O O
denuded NN O O
oocytes NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
warming NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
incubation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Complete NN O O
denudation NN O O
of NN O O
oocytes NN O O
before NN O O
slush NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
vitrification NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
positively NN O O
affects NN O O
oocyte NN O O
meiotic NN O I-OUT
spindle NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
cumulus NN O O
cells NN O O
during NN O O
vitrification NN O O
represent NN O O
an NN O O
obstacle NN O O
to NN O O
cryoprotectant NN O O
penetration NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
oocyte NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2240543)

Successful NN O O
difficult NN O O
intubation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tracheal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
over NN O O
a NN O O
gum-elastic NN O I-INT
bougie NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
tracheal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
rotation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
passage NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
tube NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
gum-elastic NN O O
bougie NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
trachea NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
laryngoscope NN O O
on NN O O
successful NN O O
tube NN O O
placement NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
difficult NN O O
intubation NN O O
was NN O O
simulated NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
laryngoscope NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
first-time NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
tube NN O O
orientation NN O O
of NN O O
-90 NN O O
degrees NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bevel NN O O
facing NN O O
posteriorly NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
tube NN O O
orientation NN O O
of NN O O
0 NN O O
degrees NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
orientation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bevel NN O O
facing NN O O
left NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
unsuccessful NN O I-OUT
first-time NN O I-OUT
intubations NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
0 NN O O
degree NN O O
orientation NN O O
were NN O O
frequently NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
intubations NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
-90 NN O O
degrees NN O O
position NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
attempt NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
laryngoscope NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
mouth NN O O
while NN O O
rail-roading NN O O
a NN O O
tube NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
bougie NN O O
also NN O O
made NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
first-time NN O I-OUT
intubations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
most NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
method NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
leave NN O O
the NN O O
laryngoscope NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
mouth NN O O
and NN O O
rotate NN O O
the NN O O
tube NN O O
to NN O O
-90 NN O O
degrees NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22421496)

Randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
transnasal NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
detect NN O O
Barrett NN O O
's NN O O
esophagus NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Unsedated NN O I-INT
transnasal NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TNE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
safer NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
expensive NN O O
than NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
Barrett NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
esophagus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Emerging NN O O
technologies NN O O
require NN O O
robust NN O O
evaluation NN O O
before NN O O
routine NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
TNE NN O I-INT
in NN O O
diagnosing NN O O
BE NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
SE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Single NN O O
, NN O O
tertiary-care NN O O
referral NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
enrolled NN O O
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BE NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
diagnostic NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
All NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
TNE NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
SE NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
. NN O O

Spielberger NN O I-OUT
State-Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
short-form NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-OUT
question NN O I-OUT
addressing NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
endoscopy NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
TNE NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
SE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
95 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
correctly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
48 NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
BE NN O O
cases NN O O
by NN O O
TNE NN O I-INT
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
columnar NN O O
lined NN O O
esophagus NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
criterion NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
SE NN O I-INT
, NN O O
giving NN O O
a NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
0.98 NN O O
and NN O O
1.00 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
BE NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
] NN O O
1-5 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
SE NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
2-4 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
TNE NN O I-INT
, NN O O
giving NN O O
high NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
modalities NN O O
( NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.97 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
intestinal NN O O
metaplasia NN O O
by NN O O
TNE NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
by NN O O
SE NN O O
was NN O O
0.91 NN O O
and NN O O
1.00 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
post-endoscopy NN O I-OUT
Spielberger NN O I-OUT
State-Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
short-form NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-INT
TNE NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30.0 NN O O
? NN O O
1.10 NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
[ NN O O
SEM NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O I-INT
SE NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30.7 NN O O
? NN O O
1.29 NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.054 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
expressed NN O O
a NN O O
preference NN O O
for NN O O
TNE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
LIMITATIONS NN O I-INT
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
limited NN O O
generalizability NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BE NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
differential NN O O
drop-out NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
sedation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
TNE NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
accurate NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
diagnosing NN O O
BE NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
SE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TNE NN O I-INT
warrants NN O I-INT
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
screening NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
BE NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22434360)

Pemetrexed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
final NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Recurrent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCCHN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

Platinum-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
often NN O O
a NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Pemetrexed NN O I-INT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
single-agent NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
SCCHN NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
SCCHN NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
SCCHN NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
pemetrexed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
500 NN O I-PAR
mg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
mg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
398 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
mg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
397 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
assess NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
and NN O O
6.3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-cisplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.87 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.75-1.02 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.082 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O I-INT
pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
3.6 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo-cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
2.8 NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.88 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.76-1.03 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.166 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
0 NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
347 NN O O
) NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo-cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
343 NN O O
; NN O O
8.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
6.7 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.83 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.026 NN O O
; NN O O
4.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.0 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.84 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.044 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oropharyngeal NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
86 NN O O
) NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
longer NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo-cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
106 NN O O
; NN O O
9.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
6.1 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.59 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
; NN O O
4.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.4 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.73 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.047 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo-cisplatin NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
improve NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prespecified NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
0 NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
oropharyngeal NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22465904)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
on NN O O
obsessive-compulsive NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Obsessive-compulsive NN O O
disorder NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
neuropsychiatric NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
various NN O O
pharmaceutical NN O O
agents NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
obsessive-compulsive NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
psychiatrists NN O O
often NN O O
find NN O O
that NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
tolerate NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
medications NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
respond NN O O
properly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
medications NN O O
lose NN O O
their NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
augmentation NN O O
with NN O O
safe NN O O
supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
trace NN O O
elements NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
solution NN O O
to NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
8-wk NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mg/d NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
440 NN O I-PAR
mg/d NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
wk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
Yale-Brown NN O I-OUT
Obsessive-Compulsive NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Based NN O O
on NN O O
t NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
weeks NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
obsessive-compulsive NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
produces NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2248073)

Moclobemide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
imipramine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moclobemide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
imipramine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
depressive NN O O
episodes NN O O
in NN O O
75 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
moclobemide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
it NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg. NN O I-INT
Imipramine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
starting NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
33 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gradually NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O O
after NN O O
which NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
increased NN O O
; NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Zung NN O I-OUT
Self-rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
clearly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
active NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Moclobemide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
imipramine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
almost NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
respect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22480794)

Tinzaparin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
dalteparin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
periprocedure NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
thromboembolic NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LMWH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
cleared NN O O
predominantly NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
kidneys NN O O
and NN O O
hence NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
uncertainty NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
whether NN O O
tinzaparin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
dalteparin NN O I-INT
differentially NN O O
accumulate NN O O
in NN O O
HD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Open-label NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
& NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
HD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
periprocedure NN O I-PAR
bridging NN O I-PAR
anticoagulation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
After NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tinzaparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
175 NN O I-INT
IU/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dalteparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
intervening NN O O
HD NN O O
treatments NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOMES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
predialysis NN O I-OUT
anti-Xa NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
third NN O I-OUT
LMWH NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
target NN O O
, NN O O
< NN O O
0.2 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
consenting NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
tinzaparin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
dalteparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mean NN O I-OUT
predialysis NN O I-OUT
anti-Xa NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
20-24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
LMWH NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
0.37 NN O O
? NN O O
0.23 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
for NN O I-INT
tinzaparin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
0.62 NN O O
? NN O O
0.41 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
for NN O I-INT
dalteparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
accumulation NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
invasive NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
canceled NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
accumulation NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
major NN O O
bleed NN O O
after NN O O
traumatic NN O O
arteriovenous NN O O
fistula NN O O
puncture NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
tinzaparin NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
, NN O O
2 NN O O
non-ST-elevation NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarctions NN O O
[ NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
upper-extremity NN O O
deep NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
dalteparin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Dalteparin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tinzaparin NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
accumulate NN O O
in NN O O
HD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Bridging NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
LMWHs NN O O
at NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O O
HD NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
require NN O O
temporary NN O O
interruption NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O I-INT
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
complications NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
uncertain NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
strategies NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
no NN O O
bridging NN O O
therapy NN O O
or NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
need NN O O
comparative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
unique NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22495940)

Competitive NN O I-INT
memory NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
COMET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Self-esteem NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
concern NN O O
in NN O O
mood NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O I-OUT
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
symptom NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O O
disorders NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
by NN O O
some NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
for NN O O
relapse NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
high NN O O
self-esteem NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
buffer NN O O
against NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
, NN O O
Competitive NN O I-OUT
Memory NN O I-OUT
Training NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
COMET NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
enhancement NN O O
of NN O O
self-esteem NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
psychopathological NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
assesses NN O O
whether NN O O
COMET NN O I-INT
is NN O O
also NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
depressive NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
institution NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
eight NN O O
group NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
COMET NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
regular NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
COMET NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O I-INT
ongoing NN O I-INT
regular NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
latter NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
COMET NN O I-INT
after NN O O
their NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
only NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
that NN O O
completed NN O O
COMET NN O I-INT
were NN O O
contacted NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
COMET NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
only NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
COMET NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
large NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
rumination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
COMET NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
remained NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
or NN O O
improved NN O O
even NN O O
further NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
COMET NN O I-INT
for NN O O
low NN O O
self-esteem NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
efficacious NN O O
trans-diagnostic NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
relatively NN O O
easily NN O O
be NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
depressive NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22499291)

Visit-to-visit NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
Lacidipine NN O O
Study NN O O
on NN O O
Atherosclerosis NN O O
: NN O O
methodological NN O O
aspects NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
antihypertensive NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
visit-to-visit NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
variability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
a NN O O
given NN O O
patient NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

Partly NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
between-patient NN O O
dispersion NN O O
of NN O O
BP NN O O
values NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variability NN O O
) NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
?-blocker NN O I-INT
than NN O O
for NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
and NN O O
other NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

GOALS NN O O
To NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
visit-to-visit NN O I-OUT
intraindividual NN O I-OUT
variations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
clinic NN O O
and NN O O
24-h NN O O
mean NN O O
BP NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
Lacidipine NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ELSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lacidipine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
check NN O O
whether NN O O
interindividual NN O O
clinic NN O O
and NN O O
24-h NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
variabilities NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
can NN O O
really NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
surrogate NN O O
of NN O O
intraindividual NN O O
variabilities NN O O
in NN O O
exploring NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O I-INT
?-blocker NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O I-OUT
Long-term NN O I-OUT
intraindividual NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
coefficient NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
each NN O O
visit NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6-month NN O I-PAR
intervals NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
yearly NN O I-PAR
intervals NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
24-h NN O I-PAR
values NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
titration NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Visit-to-visit NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
SBP/DBP NN O I-OUT
variabilities NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
20-25 NN O O
% NN O O
smaller NN O O
than NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
loosely NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
0.022 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
limited NN O O
relationship NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O I-OUT
0.026 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
visit-to-visit NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
variabilities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
latter NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
two NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Visit-to-visit NN O I-OUT
intraindividual NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
on NN O O
calcium NN O O
antagonist NN O O
than NN O O
on NN O O
?-blocker NN O O
treatment NN O O
but NN O O
little NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
between-treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
visit-to-visit NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
SBP/DBP NN O I-OUT
particularly NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
under NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Interindividual NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
markedly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
intra-individiual NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
precisely NN O O
reflect NN O O
the NN O O
treatment-induced NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visit-to-visit NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
does NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
differ NN O I-OUT
substantially NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
?-blocker NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Major NN O O
discrepancies NN O O
exist NN O O
between NN O O
visit-to-visit NN O O
BP NN O O
variability NN O O
as NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
24-h NN O O
vs. NN O O
clinic NN O O
BP NN O O
, NN O O
making NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
indices NN O O
is NN O O
clinically NN O O
more NN O O
relevant NN O O
important NN O O
. NN O O

Interindividual NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
shows NN O O
marked NN O O
quantitative NN O O
differences NN O O
with NN O O
intraindividual NN O O
BP NN O O
variability NN O O
questioning NN O O
whether NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
can NN O O
accurately NN O O
reflect NN O O
individual NN O O
BP NN O O
variations NN O O
from NN O O
one NN O O
visit NN O O
to NN O O
another NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22512510)

The NN O O
Social NN O O
Communication NN O O
Intervention NN O O
Project NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
speech NN O O
and NN O O
language NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
school-age NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
pragmatic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
show NN O I-PAR
disproportionate NN O I-PAR
difficulty NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pragmatic NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
structural NN O I-PAR
aspects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
described NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
pragmatic NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PLI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Some NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
PLI NN O O
also NN O O
show NN O O
mild NN O O
social NN O O
impairments NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
high-functioning NN O O
autism NN O O
or NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
robust NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
speech-language NN O O
interventions NN O O
which NN O O
target NN O O
the NN O O
language NN O O
, NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
or NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
needs NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
manualized NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCIP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
PLI NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
& NN O O
PROCEDURES NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
RCT NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
88 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pragmatic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
needs NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
11-10 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
speech NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
SCIP NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
treatment-as-usual NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
SCIP NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
research NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
therapist NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
assistants NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
therapy NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
methodology NN O O
was NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
manual NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
structural NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
narrative NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parent-reported NN O I-OUT
pragmatic NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blind-rated NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conversational NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher-reported NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
classroom NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
pre-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOMES NN O O
& NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
structural NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
narrative NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
blind-rated NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conversational NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
parent-reported NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pragmatic NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
teacher-reported NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
classroom NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
& NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
blind NN O O
and NN O O
parent/teacher-reported NN O O
communication NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
standardized NN O O
language NN O O
assessment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
6-11-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
pragmatic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
needs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
increasingly NN O O
central NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
service NN O O
user NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
providing NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
substantial NN O O
overlap NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
PLI NN O O
and NN O O
ASD NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
cohort NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
applicable NN O O
to NN O O
some NN O O
verbally NN O O
able NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
communication NN O O
needs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22513516)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
HES NN O I-INT
130/0.4 NN O O
versus NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
HES NN O I-INT
200/0.5 NN O O
for NN O O
plasma NN O O
volume NN O O
expansion NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
Hydroxyethyl NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HES NN O O
) NN O O
solutions NN O O
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
perioperative NN O O
volume NN O O
replacement NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
older NN O O
HES NN O O
specimen NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
accumulate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
negative NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
recent NN O O
products NN O O
, NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
HES NN O O
130/0.4 NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
characterised NN O O
by NN O O
improved NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
HES NN O O
130/0.4 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
HES NN O O
200/0.5 NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
post-hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multi-center NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
equivalence NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
76 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
on-pump NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
perioperative NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
HES NN O I-INT
130/0.4 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N.=37 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
HES NN O I-INT
200/0.5 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N.=39 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Equivalent NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
investigational NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
infused NN O O
until NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
administration NN O O
( NN O O
1577 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1540 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
37 NN O O
[ NN O O
-150 NN O O
; NN O O
223 NN O O
] NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
for NN O O
equivalence NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
morning NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
HES NN O O
130/0.4 NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
HES NN O O
200/0.5 NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
being NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
concerning NN O O
other NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
well NN O O
preserved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Ten NN O O
percent NN O O
HES NN O O
130/0.4 NN O O
was NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
HES NN O O
200/0.5 NN O O
for NN O O
volume NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
standard NN O O
laboratory NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22548691)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
Dader NN O I-INT
Method NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pharmaceutical NN O O
care NN O O
on NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
EMDADER-CV NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
some NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
pharmacist NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CVD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
more NN O O
evidence NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
RCTs NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
community NN O I-INT
pharmacist NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CVD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Dader NN O I-INT
Method NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
pharmaceutical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
on NN O O
achieving NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
goals NN O O
for NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP/TC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CVD NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
pharmacies NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Spain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
pharmacies NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prescription NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
indicated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
CVD NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
CV NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
pharmaceutical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
specially NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
pharmacists NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
collaboration NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
physicians NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
dispensing NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
regarding NN O I-INT
CVD NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
16 NN O O
and NN O O
32 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
proportions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
achieving NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BP/TC NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
goals NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
BP NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
140/90 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
130/80 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
chronic NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
or NN O O
stroke NN O O
; NN O O
TC NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
dL NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
CVD NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
175 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
dL NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CVD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
manually NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacist NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
10-minute NN O O
rest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
measurement NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
twice NN O O
for NN O O
every NN O O
participant NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
measurements NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

TC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacist NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
visit NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
enzymatic NN O I-OUT
dry NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
2-tailed NN O O
McNemar NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
Pearson NN O O
chi-square NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t-tests NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
714 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
356 NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
358 NN O O
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
62.8 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
8.1 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
goals NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BP/TC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
pharmaceutical NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
goals NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
52.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
43.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
56.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
44.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
BP/TC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
37.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
21.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pharmaceutical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
collaboration NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
physicians NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
the NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BP/TC NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
goals NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CVD NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
CV NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
pharmacies NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Spain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22574591)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
shuxuening NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
metalloproteinase-9 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tissue NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metalloproteinase-1 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
exacerbated NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Shuxuening NN O I-INT
Injection NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
metalloproteinase-9 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MMP-9 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tissue NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metalloproteinase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TIMP-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
exacerbated NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Seventy-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
exacerbated NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Routine NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
COPD NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
SI NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
dripping NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
forced NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
forced NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
detected NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Spirometer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
FEV1/FVC NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
MMP-9 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TIMP-1 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
using NN O O
ELISA NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
healthy NN O O
subjects NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FEV1/FVC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
MMP-9 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TIMP-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MMP-9/TIMP-1 NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
more NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Correlation NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
obvious NN O O
negative NN O O
correlation NN O O
existed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
MMP-9 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TIMP-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FEV1/FVC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.677 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.629 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Obvious NN O O
negative NN O O
correlation NN O O
existed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
MMP-9 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TIMP-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.562 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.661 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
obvious NN O O
negative NN O O
correlation NN O O
also NN O O
existed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
MMP-9/ NN O O
TIMP-1 NN O O
and NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
FEV1/FVC NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.732 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.891 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
SI NN O I-INT
could NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
ventilation NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
exacerbated NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
lowering NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
MMP-9 NN O O
and NN O O
TIMP-1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
correcting NN O O
the NN O O
imbalance NN O O
of NN O O
MMP-9/TIMP-1 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22578685)

Carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
open-chamber NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
neurocognitive NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
open-chamber NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
pericardial NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cardiac NN O O
chamber NN O O
deairing NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
transesophageal NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
neurocognitive NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open-chamber NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
left-sided NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
addition NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
standardized NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-PAR
deairing NN O I-PAR
maneuvers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
. NN O O

Neurocognitive NN O O
testing NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
z NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
preoperative NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

Linear NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
neurocognitive NN O O
decline NN O O
. NN O O

Factors NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
strongly NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neurocognitive NN O I-PAR
decline NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
intracardiac NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
on NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
transesophageal NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cardiac NN O O
chambers NN O O
( NN O O
left NN O O
atrium NN O O
, NN O O
left NN O O
ventricle NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
aorta NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
measured NN O O
times NN O O
( NN O O
after NN O O
crossclamp NN O O
removal NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
weaning NN O O
from NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
declaration NN O O
of NN O O
adequate NN O O
deairing NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
anesthetist NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
carbon NN O O
dioxide NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Deairing NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
minutes NN O O
[ NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
9-18 NN O O
] NN O O
versus NN O O
9 NN O O
minutes NN O O
[ NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
7-14 NN O O
minutes NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
pericardial NN O O
insufflation NN O O
in NN O O
open-chamber NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
postoperative NN O O
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
important NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
atheromatous NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22595172)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
skin-to-skin NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
on NN O O
autonomic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
autonomic NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
longer NN O I-PAR
Kangaroo NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
minutes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
KC30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
shorter NN O I-PAR
KC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
minutes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
KC15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
throughout NN O I-PAR
heel NN O I-PAR
stick NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incubator NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Beat-to-beat NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
spectral NN O O
power NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
variability NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
frequency NN O O
power NN O O
( NN O O
LF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
frequency NN O O
power NN O O
( NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
LF/HF NN O O
ratio NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
HR NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
from NN O O
Baseline NN O O
to NN O O
Heel NN O O
Stick NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
KC30 NN O O
and NN O O
KC15 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
IC NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
infants NN O O
had NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
IC NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
KC NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
IC NN O O
, NN O O
LF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
Baseline NN O O
to NN O O
Heel NN O O
Stick NN O O
and NN O O
dropped NN O O
from NN O O
Heel NN O O
Stick NN O O
to NN O O
Recovery NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
KC NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
across NN O O
study NN O O
phases NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
Heel NN O O
Stick NN O O
, NN O O
LF NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
HF NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
IC NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
KC30 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
LF/HF NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
Baseline NN O O
to NN O O
Heel NN O O
Stick NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
Recovery NN O O
; NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
IC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
longer NN O O
and NN O O
shorter NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
throughout NN O O
heel NN O O
stick NN O O
can NN O O
stabilize NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
preterm NN O O
infants NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
infants NN O O
' NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
and NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
responses NN O O
during NN O O
heel NN O O
stick NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
incubator NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PERSPECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
reducing NN O O
autonomic NN O O
pain NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
that NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
pain NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
neonatal NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22628369)

Enhancing NN O O
HIV NN O O
medication NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
India NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
adherence NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
new NN O O
to NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Chandigarh NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
3-month NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
crossover NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Adherence NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
prescription NN O I-OUT
refill NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pill NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-report NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
immediate NN O O
intervention NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
delayed NN O O
intervention NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
nonadherent NN O O
by NN O O
pill NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
condition NN O O
participants NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
skipping NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
least NN O O
once NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
the NN O O
postintervention NN O O
to NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
adherence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
immediate NN O O
intervention NN O O
) NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
adherence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
delayed NN O O
intervention NN O O
; NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
5.67 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
support NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
long-term NN O O
healthy NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22634446)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
persistent NN O I-PAR
genital NN O I-PAR
warts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
HPV6 NN O I-INT
L1 NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
like NN O I-INT
particles NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VLPs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VLP NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
genital NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
destructive NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
blinded NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-PAR
genital NN O I-PAR
warts NN O I-PAR
amenable NN O O
to NN O O
destructive NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
conducted NN O I-PAR
independently NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
destructive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
all NN O O
evident NN O O
warts NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
VLP NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
NaCl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
week NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
visible NN O O
warts NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
compliant NN O I-PAR
Brisbane NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
immunotherapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
disease NN O O
free NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
9 NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
wart NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Wart NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
destructive NN O O
treatment NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
prior NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O I-PAR
102 NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
compliant NN O I-PAR
Brisbane NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
VLP NN O I-PAR
immunotherapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
? NN O O
s.e.m NN O O
. NN O O

7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
recipients NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
5 NN O O
?g NN O O
or NN O O
25 NN O O
?g NN O O
of NN O O
VLP NN O O
immunotherapy/dose NN O O
( NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
? NN O O
s.e.m NN O O
. NN O O

7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
1 NN O O
?g NN O O
VLP NN O O
immunotherapy/dose NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
? NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
compliant NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
immunotherapy NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Wenzhou NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
37 NN O O
were NN O O
disease NN O O
free NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
8 NN O O
had NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Prior NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
much NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
Wenzhou NN O O
subject NN O O
( NN O O
8.1 NN O O
? NN O O
1.1 NN O O
mo NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
Brisbane NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
53.7 NN O O
? NN O O
5.5 NN O O
mo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
wart NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
168 NN O I-PAR
Wenzhou NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
compliant NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
VLP NN O I-PAR
immunotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
VLP NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
may NN O O
assist NN O O
in NN O O
clearance NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
genital NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
destructive NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
unsuccessful NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
unsuccessful NN O I-PAR
destructive NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
prior NN O O
disease NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22640463)

Impact NN O O
on NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
e-learning NN O I-INT
module NN O I-INT
on NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
e-learning NN O I-INT
resources NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
complex NN O O
or NN O O
conceptually NN O O
difficult NN O O
topics NN O O
. NN O O

Leukaemia NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
such NN O O
topic NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
reports NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
e-learning NN O O
for NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O I-PAR
senior NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
a NN O O
purpose-built NN O O
e-learning NN O I-INT
module NN O I-INT
on NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
existing NN O I-INT
online NN O I-INT
resources NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
utilising NN O O
volunteer NN O I-PAR
senior NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
Study NN O O
and NN O O
Control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
a NN O O
pre-test NN O O
on NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Study NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
provided NN O O
with NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O I-INT
e-learning NN O I-INT
module NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
Control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
directed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
existing NN O I-INT
online NN O I-INT
resources NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
post-test NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Study NN O O
and NN O O
Control NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
in NN O O
gender NN O O
distribution NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
academic NN O O
ability NN O O
, NN O O
pre-test NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
studying NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Study NN O O
group NN O O
performed NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
Control NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
post-test NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
students NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
allocated NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Study NN O O
group NN O O
's NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
module NN O O
was NN O O
overwhelmingly NN O O
positive NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
targeted NN O O
e-learning NN O I-INT
module NN O I-INT
on NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
existing NN O O
online NN O O
resources NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
believe NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
interactivity NN O O
, NN O O
dialogic NN O O
feedback NN O O
and NN O O
integration NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
curriculum NN O O
offered NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
e-learning NN O I-INT
module NN O I-INT
contributed NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
impact NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
has NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
e-learning NN O I-INT
design NN O O
in NN O O
medicine NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
disciplines NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22670827)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
self-pressurised NN O O
air-QTM NN O O
intubating NN O O
laryngeal NN O I-INT
airway NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
LMA NN O I-INT
Unique? NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O I-INT
self-pressurised NN O I-INT
air-Q? NN O I-INT
intubating NN O I-INT
laryngeal NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
air-Q NN O I-INT
SP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
LMA-Unique NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcomes NN O I-PAR
measured NN O O
were NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ease NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fibreoptic NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
insufflation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
[ NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
device NN O I-OUT
placement NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
faster NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
air-Q NN O O
SP NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
10-15 NN O O
[ NN O O
5-18 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
s NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
LMA-Unique NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
12-17 NN O O
[ NN O O
6-22 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
s NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
air-Q NN O O
SP NN O O
and NN O O
LMA-Unique NN O O
in NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
16 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14-18 NN O O
[ NN O O
10-29 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
15-20 NN O O
[ NN O O
10-30 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
cmH2 NN O O
O NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
10 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
16-22 NN O O
[ NN O O
12-30 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
16-22 NN O O
[ NN O O
10-30 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
cmH2 NN O O
O NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.81 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
fibreoptic NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
insufflation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O I-OUT
devices NN O O
provided NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
manipulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
air-Q NN O O
SP NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
LMA-Unique NN O O
should NN O O
the NN O O
clinician NN O O
prefer NN O O
a NN O O
device NN O O
not NN O O
requiring NN O O
cuff NN O O
monitoring NN O O
during NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22676466)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Asha NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Asha-Life NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Usual NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
conduct NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
68 NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
programs NN O O
on NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Asha-Life NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
engaging NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
HIV-trained NN O O
village NN O O
woman NN O O
, NN O O
Asha NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Accredited NN O I-INT
Social NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Activist NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
living NN O O
with NN O O
AIDS NN O O
( NN O O
WLA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
Usual NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
prevalence NN O I-PAR
HIV/AIDS NN O I-PAR
villages NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
Andhra NN O I-PAR
Pradesh NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
demographically NN O I-PAR
alike NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
distinct NN O I-PAR
Public NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Centers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
villages NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
Asha-Life NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
their NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Usual NN O O
Care NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
higher NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22683613)

Plerixafor NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
for NN O O
mobilization NN O O
of NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
stem NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
CD34 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Preapheresis NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
( NN O O
PB NN O O
) NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
( NN O O
HSC NN O O
) NN O O
mobilization NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
routinely NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
optimize NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
, NN O O
cost NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
HSC NN O O
collection NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
uniform NN O O
PB NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
that NN O O
predicts NN O O
mobilization NN O O
failure NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
defined NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
institute-specific NN O O
algorithms NN O O
for NN O O
mobilization NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O O
of NN O O
when NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
novel NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
mobilization NN O O
agent NN O O
plerixafor NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
mobilization NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
plerixafor NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
preapheresis NN O I-PAR
PB NN O I-PAR
CD34 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
?20 NN O I-PAR
cells/?L NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Regardless NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
the NN O O
PB NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
yield NN O O
of NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
cells NN O O
from NN O O
apheresis NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plerixafor NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plerixafor NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
collected NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
( NN O O
?2 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
cells/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
optimum NN O O
( NN O O
?6 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
cells/kg NN O O
) NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
yields NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
apheresis NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
corollary NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
stem NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
collection NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plerixafor-treated NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
apheresis NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
minimum NN O O
and NN O O
optimum NN O O
cell NN O O
doses NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
proceeding NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
transplantation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
engraftment NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
plerixafor NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
who NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
predicted NN O O
to NN O O
fail NN O O
mobilization NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
low NN O O
PB NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
plerixafor NN O O
to NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
allows NN O O
for NN O O
collection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
minimal NN O O
and NN O O
optimal NN O O
cell NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
plerixafor NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
optimal NN O O
HSC NN O O
collection NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
preapheresis NN O O
PB NN O O
CD34 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
cell NN O O
counts NN O O
( NN O O
?20 NN O O
cells/?L NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
plus NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
. NN O O

Collectively NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
predicted NN O O
poor NN O O
mobilizers NN O O
validates NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O I-INT
plerixafor NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
previously NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22695168)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
orthotic NN O I-INT
heel NN O I-INT
lifts NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Achilles NN O I-OUT
tendon NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
running NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
orthotic NN O I-INT
heel NN O I-INT
lifts NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Achilles NN O I-OUT
tendon NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
running NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
ran NN O I-PAR
barefoot NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
force NN O I-PAR
plate NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
heel NN O I-INT
lifts NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
NHL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
heel NN O I-INT
lifts NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
12HL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
heel NN O I-INT
lifts NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
18HL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Kinematics NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
( NN O O
200 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

AT NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
from NN O O
inverse NN O O
dynamics NN O O
. NN O O

AT NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
from NN O O
kinematics NN O O
and NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
medial NN O O
gastrocnemius NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
for NN O O
18HL NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
? NN O O
4.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
NHL NN O O
( NN O O
7.4 NN O O
? NN O O
4.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.029 NN O O
, NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
[ NN O O
ES NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
0.44 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
12HL NN O O
( NN O O
5.8 NN O O
? NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
NHL NN O O
( NN O O
ES NN O O
= NN O O
0.35 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peak NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.024 NN O O
, NN O O
ES NN O O
= NN O O
0.42 NN O O
) NN O O
less NN O O
for NN O O
18HL NN O O
( NN O O
2382 NN O O
? NN O O
717 NN O O
N NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
NHL NN O O
( NN O O
2710 NN O O
? NN O O
830 NN O O
N NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
12HL NN O O
( NN O O
2538 NN O O
? NN O O
823 NN O O
N NN O O
, NN O O
ES NN O O
= NN O O
0.21 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
18HL NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexion NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
flexion-extension NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
moments NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
moment NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
NHL NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
18HL NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
AT NN O O
during NN O O
running NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
lengthened NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
moment NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
heel NN O I-INT
lifts NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
AT NN O I-OUT
loading NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
of NN O O
AT NN O O
injuries NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22709747)

Rationale NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
vagal NN O O
tone NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
: NN O O
INOVATE-HF NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Imbalance NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
and NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nervous NN O O
systems NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
recognized NN O O
contributor NN O O
to NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Current NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
beta NN O O
adrenergic NN O O
antagonists NN O O
is NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
the NN O O
up-regulation NN O O
of NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
and NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
effects NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
therapies NN O O
that NN O O
specifically NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
influences NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
structure NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
vagus NN O O
nerve NN O O
stimulation NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
international NN O O
multi-center NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
INOVATE-HF NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
vagus NN O O
nerve NN O O
stimulation NN O O
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
optimal NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
the NN O O
CardioFit NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BioControl NN O O
Medical NN O O
, NN O O
Yehud NN O O
, NN O O
Israel NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
650 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
3:2 NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
optimal NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
include NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
Class NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
QRS NN O I-PAR
width NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
milliseconds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
powered NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Vagal NN O O
nerve NN O O
stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
CardioFit NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
is NN O O
under NN O O
active NN O O
investigation NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
restore NN O O
balance NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
and NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
nervous NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
this NN O O
novel NN O O
approach NN O O
will NN O O
impact NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
paradigm NN O O
for NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2271374)

Investigations NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
dose NN O O
ketorolac NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
racemic NN O I-OUT
warfarin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
potential NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
racemic NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
given NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chronically NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Ketorolac NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-warfarin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
. NN O O

Ketorolac NN O I-INT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
alter NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
racemic NN O I-OUT
warfarin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Ketorolac NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-OUT
template NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
1.35 NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
ketorolac-warfarin NN O O
interaction NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
and NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
undertaken NN O O
with NN O O
due NN O O
caution NN O O
and NN O O
appropriate NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22721929)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
chelation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
progressive NN O O
diabetic NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high-normal NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
lead NN O I-PAR
burdens NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
previous NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
high-normal NN O O
body NN O O
lead NN O O
burdens NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
EDTA NN O I-INT
chelation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
slows NN O O
progressive NN O O
diabetic NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
kidney NN O O
function NN O O
decrease NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
12-month NN O O
run-in NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
single-blind NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
27-month NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
& NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
creatinine NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1.5-3.9 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-normal NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
lead NN O I-PAR
burden NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?80- NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
600 NN O I-PAR
?g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTION NN O I-INT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
weekly NN O I-INT
chelation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
their NN O O
body NN O O
lead NN O O
burden NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
60 NN O O
?g NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
this NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOMES NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
eGFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
2-fold NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
replacement NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MEASUREMENTS NN O I-OUT
Body NN O O
lead NN O O
burdens NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
EDTA NN O O
mobilization NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
eGFR NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
equation NN O O
for NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
eGFRs NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
chelation NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
eGFR NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
+1.0 NN O O
? NN O O
4.8 NN O O
mL/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
-1.5 NN O O
? NN O O
4.8 NN O O
mL/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
24-month NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
yearly NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
eGFR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.6 NN O O
? NN O O
5.0 NN O O
mL/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
slower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
( NN O O
9.2 NN O O
? NN O O
3.6 NN O O
mL/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
control-group NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treatment-group NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
27-month NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
EDTA NN O O
chelation NN O O
therapy NN O O
retards NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O O
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-normal NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
lead NN O I-PAR
burdens NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22732966)

Nutritional NN O O
orientation NN O O
, NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Non-pharmacological NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
studies NN O O
evaluate NN O O
low NN O O
sodium NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
adherence NN O O
and NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
about NN O O
diet NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
nutritional NN O I-INT
orientation NN O I-INT
could NN O O
affect NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
guidelines NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anthropometrics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
staff NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
relationship NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sources NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nutrients NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fats NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Enforcement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Evaluations NN O O
included NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
24-hour NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
recall NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nutrition NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
nutritional NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
increased NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Caloric NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Nutritional NN O I-INT
orientation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
to NN O O
modify NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nutrition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22732975)

Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
plantarum NN O I-INT
CECT7315 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CECT7316 NN O I-INT
stimulate NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
illness NN O O
is NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
why NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
plantarum NN O I-INT
CECT NN O I-INT
7315/7316 NN O I-INT
to NN O O
stimulate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
influenza NN O I-OUT
vaccination NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
PROCEDURES NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
human NN O O
trial NN O O
including NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
institutionalized NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
65-85 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
the NN O O
volunteers NN O O
were NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trivalent NN O I-INT
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
A/Wisconsin/67/2005 NN O I-INT
NYMC NN O I-INT
X-161B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H3N2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
A/Solomon NN O I-INT
Islands/3/2006 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H1N1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B/Malaysia/2506/2004 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
Spanish NN O O
vaccine NN O O
campaign NN O O
2006/2007 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
probiotic NN O O
began NN O O
between NN O O
three NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
vaccination NN O O
. NN O O

Volunteers NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
following NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
receiving NN O O
5*10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
cfu/day NN O O
of NN O O
L. NN O I-INT
plantarum NN O I-INT
CECT NN O I-INT
7315/7316 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
20 NN O O
g NN O O
powdered NN O O
skim NN O O
milk NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
receiving NN O O
5*10 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
cfu/day NN O O
of NN O O
L. NN O I-INT
plantarum NN O I-INT
CECT NN O I-INT
7315/7316 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
20 NN O O
g NN O O
powdered NN O O
skim NN O O
milk NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
g NN O O
powered NN O I-INT
skim NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
participants NN O O
consumed NN O O
the NN O O
probiotic NN O O
during NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
L. NN O I-INT
plantarum NN O I-INT
CECT NN O I-INT
7315/7316 NN O I-INT
during NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
influenza-specific NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
influenza-specific NN O I-OUT
IgM NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
L. NN O I-INT
plantarum NN O I-INT
CECT7315/7316 NN O I-INT
has NN O O
an NN O O
immunostimulating NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elderly NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22735897)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
Multimodal NN O I-INT
Anxiety NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Social NN O I-INT
Skill NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Anxiety NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
may NN O O
amplify NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
social NN O O
disability NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
necessitating NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
approaches NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pilot NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
preliminary NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Multimodal NN O I-INT
Anxiety NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Social NN O I-INT
Skills NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MASSI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
acceptable NN O O
to NN O O
families NN O O
, NN O O
subject NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
therapist NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
within-group NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
1.18 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
parent-reported NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
by NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
MASSI NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
program NN O O
and NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2275907)

Chloroprocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
decrease NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
and NN O O
admission NN O O
rate NN O O
after NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lumbar NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
2-chloroprocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
L NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
84 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
extracorporeal NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
wave NN O I-PAR
lithotripsy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ESWL NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
31.9 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
133 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
182 NN O O
+/- NN O O
38 NN O O
( NN O O
L NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
247 NN O O
+/- NN O O
42 NN O O
( NN O O
M NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Times NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
269 NN O O
+/- NN O O
62 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
284 NN O O
+/- NN O O
62 NN O O
( NN O O
L NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
357 NN O O
+/- NN O O
71 NN O O
( NN O O
M NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
M NN O O
, NN O O
almost NN O O
six NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
C NN O O
or NN O O
L. NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increasing NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
unplanned NN O I-OUT
overnight NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
drug NN O O
employed NN O O
. NN O O

Continuous NN O O
epidural NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
L NN O O
or NN O O
M NN O O
appears NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
outpatient NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
ESWL NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
understanding NN O O
, NN O O
mepivacaine NN O O
produces NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
times NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
optimal NN O O
for NN O O
outpatient NN O O
epidural NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22777592)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
lactobacilli NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
pH NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
on NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
lactobacilli NN O I-INT
on NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
proinflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sixty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
vaginosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
flora NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
flora NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
probiotic NN O I-INT
lactobacilli NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
L. NN O I-INT
brevis NN O I-INT
CD2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
L. NN O I-INT
salivarius NN O I-INT
subsp NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
salicinius NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
L. NN O I-INT
plantarum NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
pH NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
comparator NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cervico-vaginal NN O O
lavage NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
IL-1? NN O O
, NN O O
TNF? NN O O
and NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O O
. NN O O

Neutral NN O O
sphingomyelinase NN O O
activity NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
quantified NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
probiotic NN O O
vaginal NN O O
tablet NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nearly NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
could NN O O
restore NN O O
normal NN O O
vaginal NN O O
flora NN O O
and NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
Nugent NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O I-OUT
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
BV NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pH NN O O
tablet NN O O
containing NN O O
pH NN O O
lowering NN O O
compounds NN O O
induced NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
restoration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
flora NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lactobacilli NN O O
tablet NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
pH NN O O
tablet NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O I-OUT
BV NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
healthy NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
IL-1? NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
lactobacilli NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
comparator NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
local NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Vaginal NN O I-OUT
neutral NN O I-OUT
sphingomyelinase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
modified NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Vaginal NN O O
tablets NN O O
containing NN O O
lactobacilli NN O O
can NN O O
cure NN O O
BV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22795327)

Selected NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
of NN O O
GSTP1 NN O O
and NN O O
TERT NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
glioma NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Han NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Current NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inherited NN O O
risks NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
glioma NN O I-PAR
susceptibility NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
glioma NN O O
is NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
co-inheritance NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
low-risk NN O O
variants NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
variants NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
through NN O O
association NN O O
studies NN O O
including NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
genome-wide NN O O
association NN O O
studies NN O O
( NN O O
GWAS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
led NN O O
the NN O O
glioma NN O O
epidemiology NN O O
researchers NN O O
to NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
identifying NN O O
potential NN O O
disease-causing NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
and NN O O
validated NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
tag NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
nucleotide NN O I-PAR
polymorphisms NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
tSNPs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
genes NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glioma NN O I-PAR
susceptibility NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Han NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
301 NN O I-PAR
glioma NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
302 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multiplexed NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
nucleotide NN O I-INT
polymorphism NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SNP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
MassEXTEND NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
ascertained NN O O
the NN O O
genotypic NN O O
frequencies NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
tSNP NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
Hardy-Weinberg NN O O
equilibrium NN O O
( NN O O
HWE NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
genotype NN O O
and NN O O
allele NN O O
frequencies NN O O
of NN O O
glioma NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
?2 NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
then NN O O
applied NN O O
three NN O O
genetic NN O O
models NN O O
( NN O O
dominant NN O O
, NN O O
recessive NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
additive NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
PLINK NN O O
software NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
tSNP NN O O
with NN O O
glioma NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
identified NN O O
two NN O O
tSNPs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
glioma NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
rs1695 NN O O
, NN O O
GSTP1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
; NN O O
rs2853676 NN O O
, NN O O
TERT NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
we NN O O
confirmed NN O O
using NN O O
dominant NN O O
and NN O O
additive NN O O
model NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
genotype NN O O
& NN O O
ldquo NN O O
; NN O O
GA NN O O
& NN O O
rdquo NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
rs1695 NN O O
was NN O O
recognized NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O O
genotype NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
glioma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
0.67 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.47-0.96 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
genotype NN O O
& NN O O
ldquo NN O O
; NN O O
AG NN O O
& NN O O
rdquo NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
rs2853676 NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
genotype NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
glioma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.50 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.05-2.15 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
from NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
suggest NN O O
potential NN O O
genetic NN O O
contributes NN O O
for NN O O
GSTP1 NN O O
and NN O O
TERT NN O O
in NN O O
glioma NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22853706)

Virtual NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
reasoning NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
student NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
factorial NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Virtual NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VPs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
web-based NN O O
representations NN O O
of NN O O
realistic NN O O
clinical NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
are NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
being NN O O
an NN O O
optimal NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
teaching NN O O
clinical NN O O
reasoning NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

International NN O O
standards NN O O
exist NN O O
which NN O O
define NN O O
precisely NN O O
what NN O O
constitutes NN O O
a NN O O
VP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
are NN O O
multiple NN O O
design NN O O
possibilities NN O O
for NN O O
VPs NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
formal NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
individual NN O O
design NN O O
features NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
potentially NN O O
important NN O O
design NN O O
features NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
reasoning NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
student NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
branching NN O O
case NN O O
pathways NN O O
( NN O O
present NN O O
or NN O O
absent NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
structured NN O O
clinical NN O O
reasoning NN O O
feedback NN O O
( NN O O
present NN O O
or NN O O
absent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
randomised NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
study NN O O
evaluating NN O O
two NN O O
independent NN O O
variables NN O O
of NN O O
VP NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
branching NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
present NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
absent NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
structured NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
reasoning NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
present NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
absent NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
.The NN O I-INT
study NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O I-PAR
student NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
Kingdom NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Warwick NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Keele NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Birmingham NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
are NN O O
four NN O O
core NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O O
topics NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
case NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
designed NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
ways NN O O
, NN O O
equating NN O O
to NN O O
16 NN O O
VPs NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

Students NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
VP NN O I-INT
topics NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
VP NN O I-INT
design NN O O
sequentially NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
designs NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
case NN O I-OUT
design NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
fifteen NN O I-OUT
item NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
reasoning NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
integrated NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
VP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
identical NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
topic NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additionally NN O O
a NN O O
15-item NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
completed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
VP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
EViP NN O O
tool NN O O
. NN O O

Student NN O I-PAR
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
VPs NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
recorded.In NN O O
one NN O O
centre NN O O
, NN O O
formative NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
examination NN O O
performance NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
recorded NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
self NN O O
reported NN O O
pre NN O O
and NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
reasoning NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
DTI NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
power NN O O
calculations NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
112 NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
both NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
robust NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
designs NN O O
of NN O O
virtual NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
student NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
learning NN O O
materials NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
open NN O O
access NN O O
and NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
Creative NN O O
Commons NN O O
Attribution-Share-Alike NN O O
license NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22882961)

Who NN O O
is NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
? NN O O
An NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
definitions NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
information NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
determinants NN O O
and NN O O
trends NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RF NN O O
) NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
trends NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
RF NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Swiss NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
according NN O O
to NN O O
different NN O O
definitions NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Population-based NN O I-INT
cross-sectional NN O I-INT
studies NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
1984-1986 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=3300 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1988-1989 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=3331 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1992-1993 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=3133 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2003-2006 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=6170 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
restricted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
35-75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seven NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
definitions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
RF NN O I-INT
profile NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
determinants NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
two NN O O
definitions NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
trends NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
RF NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
between NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
5.9-7.1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
9.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
9.0-10.5 NN O O
) NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
definition NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prevalence NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

Irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
definition NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
RF NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
physically NN O O
active NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
age NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
family NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
one NN O O
definition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
RF NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
3.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3.1-4.5 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
1984-1986 NN O O
to NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
6.1-7.3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
2003-2006 NN O O
; NN O O
using NN O O
another NN O O
definition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
5.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
5.1-6.8 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
9.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
9.0-10.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Switzerland NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
RF NN O O
profile NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
criteria NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
might NN O O
partly NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
trend NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2292547)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
oral NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
intra-peritoneal NN O I-INT
vancomycin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
gentamicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
CAPD NN O I-OUT
peritonitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
vancomycin/gentamicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
CAPD NN O I-PAR
peritonitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Staphylococcal NN O O
species NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
isolates NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
equal NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O I-OUT
aureus NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
coagulase NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
staphylococci NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
peritonitis NN O O
was NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
coagulase NN O O
negative NN O O
staphylococci NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22987458)

Hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Promising NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
most NN O O
involved NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
only NN O O
mild NN O O
pressure NN O O
with NN O O
oxygen NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
no NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
oxygen NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
hyperbaric NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hyperbaric NN O O
oxygen NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
HBOT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
20 NN O O
one-hour NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
HBOT NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
153 NN O I-INT
kPa NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
ATA NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
116 NN O I-INT
kPa NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.15 NN O O
ATA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ATEC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
particular NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGIC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGIS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
sub-scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
clinicians NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
ATEC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
both NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
clinicians NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
score NN O O
before NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
in NN O O
HBOT NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
in NN O O
sham NN O O
group NN O O
by NN O O
clinician NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O O
percentage NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
ATEC NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
all NN O O
subscales NN O O
scores NN O O
when NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
HBOT NN O O
and NN O O
sham NN O O
air NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
or NN O O
clinicians NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
between NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
clinicians NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGIS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
parents NN O O
rated NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
as NN O O
more NN O O
improved NN O O
following NN O O
HBOT NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
clinicians NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGIC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
clinicians NN O O
indicated NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
following NN O O
HBOT NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
such NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.28 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
20 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
HBOT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
sham NN O O
air NN O O
exposure NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
improvement NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
sub-scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
clinicians NN O O
are NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
interpret NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
overall NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
HBOT NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
shown NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
minimal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
middle NN O O
ear NN O O
barotraumas NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22989921)

Duration NN O O
of NN O O
untreated NN O O
negative NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
psychosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
psychosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Duration NN O O
of NN O O
untreated NN O I-PAR
psychosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DUP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
First NN O I-PAR
Episode NN O I-PAR
Psychosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FEP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
cognitive NN O O
outcomes NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
clearly NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Seventy-seven NN O I-PAR
consecutively NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
drug-na?ve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FEP NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1month NN O O
and NN O O
6months NN O O
. NN O O

Underlying NN O O
dimensions NN O O
of NN O O
DUP NN O O
( NN O O
general NN O O
prodrome NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
, NN O O
negative NN O O
and NN O O
disorganisation NN O O
symptoms NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Onset NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Schizophrenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Perkins NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
2000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
DUP NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
linear NN O O
mixed-effect NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
fitted NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
dimension NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
models NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
dichotomised NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
DUP NN O O
( NN O O
short NN O O
versus NN O O
long NN O O
duration NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
several NN O O
adjusting NN O O
variables NN O O
to NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
patient NN O O
differences NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
effect NN O O
to NN O O
incorporate NN O O
the NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
structure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DUNS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
short NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DUPS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
outperformed NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
untreated NN O O
symptoms NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
pre-attentional NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
fluency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
additional NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
shorten NN O O
DUP NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attentional NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
FEP NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23000125)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
nasal NN O I-INT
IgA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
vaccinated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
live NN O I-PAR
attenuated NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IgA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
predominant NN O O
antibody NN O O
produced NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
mucosal NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
IgA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
providing NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
influenza NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
vaccinated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
live NN O I-INT
attenuated NN O I-INT
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LAIV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
well NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Nasal NN O O
IgA NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
3 NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
2-year NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
comparing NN O O
LAIV NN O I-INT
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
6-36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
each NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
cohort NN O O
was NN O O
enrolled NN O O
each NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Ratios NN O O
of NN O O
strain-specific NN O O
nasal NN O I-INT
IgA NN O I-INT
to NN O O
total NN O O
nasal NN O O
IgA NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
and NN O O
prevaccination NN O O
to NN O O
postvaccination NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
fold-rises NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GMFRs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
postvaccination NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
confirmed NN O O
influenza NN O O
illness NN O O
by NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
pooled NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Across NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
receiving NN O O
LAIV NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
? NN O I-OUT
2-fold NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
strain-specific NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
GMFRs NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
LAIV NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
years NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
1.2 NN O O
to NN O O
6.2 NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.5-2.2 NN O O
among NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
baseline NN O O
seronegative NN O O
and NN O O
seropositive NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O O
hemagglutination NN O O
inhibition NN O O
antibody NN O O
titers NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
years NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
postvaccination NN O I-OUT
strain-specific NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
3.1-fold NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2.0-fold NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
LAIV NN O O
recipients NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
culture-confirmed NN O O
influenza NN O O
illness NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
LAIV NN O O
recipients NN O O
who NN O O
developed NN O O
culture-confirmed NN O O
influenza NN O O
illness NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
consistent NN O O
trend NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
individual NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
type/subtype NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
nasal NN O O
IgA NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
LAIV NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
can NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine-induced NN O O
immunity NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
inherent NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
in NN O O
nasal NN O O
antibody NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
nasal NN O O
specimen NN O O
collection NN O O
hinders NN O O
the NN O O
precise NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
mucosal NN O O
antibody NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O I-INT
LAIV-induced NN O I-INT
immunity NN O I-INT
is NN O O
also NN O O
partially NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
T-cell NN O O
immunity NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O O
antibody NN O O
responses NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
innate NN O O
immunity NN O O
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
multi-faceted NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
immunity NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
wild-type NN O O
influenza NN O O
infection NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
live NN O O
virus NN O O
vaccines NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23021480)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
Early NN O I-INT
Start NN O I-INT
Denver NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESDM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-based NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
toddlers NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1-hour/wk NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
therapist NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
parent-delivered NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
toddlers NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
98 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
sites NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Early NN O I-INT
Start NN O I-INT
Denver NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P-ESDM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
fosters NN O O
parental NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
child-centered NN O O
responsive NN O O
interaction NN O O
style NN O O
that NN O O
embeds NN O O
many NN O O
teaching NN O O
opportunities NN O O
into NN O O
play NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Assessments NN O O
were NN O O
completed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O O
coaching NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
group NN O O
assignment NN O O
on NN O O
parent-child NN O O
interaction NN O O
characteristics NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O O
improved NN O O
interaction NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
progress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parents NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
P-ESDM NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
stronger NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
alliances NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
their NN O O
therapists NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
intervention NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
P-ESDM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
younger NN O O
child NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
positively NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
behavior NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Parent-implemented NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
studies NN O I-INT
for NN O O
early NN O O
ASD NN O O
thus NN O O
far NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O O
effects NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
intensive-treatment NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
younger NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
intervention NN O O
hours NN O O
positively NN O O
affect NN O O
developmental NN O O
rates NN O O
has NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
service NN O O
delivery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
public NN O O
policy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23066765)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preparing NN O O
long-term NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
revise NN O O
the NN O O
Community NN O I-INT
Re-entry NN O I-INT
Program-Japanese NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
review NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
revised NN O O
Program NN O O
, NN O O
named NN O O
the NN O O
Discharge NN O I-INT
Preparation NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Discharge NN O I-INT
Preparation NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcome NN O O
indicators NN O O
included NN O O
factors NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
make NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
difficult NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
nurses NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
discharged NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
'Issues NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
'Autistic NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
subscales NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Discharge NN O I-OUT
Difficulty NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
DPP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
two-way NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
( NN O O
'Issues NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
compliance NN O O
' NN O O
: NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
3.818 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.10 NN O O
; NN O O
'Autistic NN O O
life NN O O
' NN O O
: NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
4.155 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
These NN O O
factors NN O O
affected NN O O
discharge NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
promoting NN O O
discharge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
hospitalized NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
With NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
discharged NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
result NN O O
is NN O O
in NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
past NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
DPP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
discharge NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23084676)

Hemostasis NN O O
by NN O O
bipolar NN O I-INT
coagulation NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
suture NN O I-INT
after NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
stripping NN O I-INT
of NN O O
bilateral NN O O
ovarian NN O O
endometriomas NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
estimate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
suture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ovary NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
bipolar NN O I-INT
coagulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preserving NN O O
ovarian NN O O
reserve NN O O
in NN O O
infertile NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
stripping NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
endometriomas NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
Canadian NN O O
Task NN O O
Force NN O O
classification NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
endometriomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
stripping NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
endometriomas NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
by NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
suturing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
coagulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
reserve NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
anti-Mullerian NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AMH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
follicle-stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
3-month NN O O
, NN O O
6-month NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
postsurgical NN O I-OUT
AMH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
and NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
percentage NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
AMH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
BC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
LS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
3- NN O O
, NN O O
6- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
percentage NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
3-month NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.023 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.029 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
conception NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endometrioma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
stripping NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ovarian NN O I-INT
endometriotic NN O I-INT
cyst NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
decreases NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
AMH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increases NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
independent NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ovarian NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23097006)

Pulmonary NN O O
vein NN O O
re-isolation NN O O
for NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
duty-cycled NN O I-INT
phased NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
2:1 NN O I-INT
bipolar/unipolar NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
mode NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
Pulmonary NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
isolation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PVI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O O
phased NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
characterize NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
conduction NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
repeat NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
successful NN O O
PVI NN O O
using NN O O
phased NN O O
RF NN O O
technology NN O O
and NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
2:1 NN O O
ablation NN O O
mode NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
primary NN O O
4:1 NN O O
bipolar/unipolar NN O O
mode NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
2:1 NN O O
mode NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
acutely NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
all NN O O
PVs NN O O
, NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
showed NN O O
reconnection NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
had NN O O
reconnected NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
PVs NN O O
. NN O O

PVI NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Procedure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fluoroscopy NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
108 NN O O
? NN O O
15 NN O O
vs. NN O O
126 NN O O
? NN O O
24 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
? NN O O
5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
23 NN O O
? NN O O
7 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
PV NN O I-OUT
reconnections NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
first NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
patients NN O O
vs. NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
9.5 NN O O
? NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
detected NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
22.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
vs. NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
13.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.722 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Phased NN O I-INT
RF NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
by NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
bipolar/unipolar NN O O
mode NN O O
seems NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
redo-PVI NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mid-term NN O O
freedom NN O O
from NN O O
AF NN O O
in NN O O
86.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
shorter NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
fluoroscopy NN O O
times NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
4:1 NN O O
ablation NN O O
mode NN O O
during NN O O
repeat NN O O
PVI NN O O
are NN O O
mainly NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
acutely NN O O
reconnected NN O O
PVs NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23104617)

Brief NN O O
Report NN O O
: NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
Research NN O I-PAR
Units NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
Psychopharmacology NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RUPP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Network NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
is NN O O
growing NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
measuring NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
core NN O O
element NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
medication NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Withdrawal NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
federally-funded NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multi-site NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Study NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
under NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
active NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
0.42 NN O O
to NN O O
0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
Social NN O O
Withdrawal NN O O
subscale NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23130813)

Emotional NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
social NN O O
rejection NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
among NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
personality NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heightened NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
personality NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
social NN O O
rejection NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
condition NN O I-INT
involving NN O I-INT
negative NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
writing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
negative NN O I-INT
evaluation/academic NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
involving NN O I-INT
negative NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
personal NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
social NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
evaluation/social NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Hypothesis NN O O
1 NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
high-BP NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
low-BP NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
would NN O O
show NN O O
greater NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O I-INT
evaluation/social NN O I-INT
rejection NN O I-INT
stressor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O I-INT
evaluation/academic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
writing NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
stressor NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hypothesis NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
high-BP NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
specifically NN O O
show NN O O
greater NN O O
reactivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shame- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anger-related NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O I-INT
evaluation/social NN O I-INT
rejection NN O I-INT
stressor NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O I-INT
evaluation/academic NN O I-INT
stressor NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Findings NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
high-BP NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
heightened NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-INT
rejection NN O I-INT
stressor NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
stressor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
opposite NN O O
pattern NN O O
occurred NN O O
for NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
heightened NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shame NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
high-BP NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
specifically NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
rejection NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23134960)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
auricular NN O I-INT
Shenmen NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
and NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
cesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
transcutaneous NN O O
electrical NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
auricular NN O O
Shenmen NN O O
point NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
and NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
cesarean NN O O
section NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
IRB NN O O
approval NN O O
and NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty NN O I-PAR
singleton NN O I-PAR
primiparas NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
cesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Qingdao NN O I-PAR
Municipal NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Qingdao NN O I-PAR
Hiser NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
auricular NN O I-INT
Shenmen NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
auricular NN O I-INT
Eye NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
received NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
auricular NN O O
Shenmen NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
frequency NN O O
1.5 NN O O
HZ NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
preoperation NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
postoperation NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
strength NN O O
was NN O O
controlled NN O O
by NN O O
themselves NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
auricular NN O O
Eye NN O O
point NN O O
as NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
received NN O O
pressurization NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
connected NN O I-INT
line NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
following NN O O
indexes NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
( NN O O
PONV NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
metoclopramide NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
contration NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperation NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
compressions NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patient-controlled NN O I-OUT
epidural NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PCEA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
mixture NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
anal NN O I-OUT
exhaust NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metoclopramide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
-T NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
compressions NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PCEA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
compressions NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
mixture NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
compared NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
anal NN O I-OUT
exhaust NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
postoperation NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
other NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Transcutaneous NN O O
electrical NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
auricular NN O O
Shenmen NN O O
point NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improves NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PCEA NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
postoperation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cesarean NN O I-OUT
section NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23140338)

Individual NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O I-INT
theory NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mind NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Having NN O O
a NN O O
'theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
' NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
having NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
attribute NN O O
mental NN O O
states NN O O
to NN O O
oneself NN O O
or NN O O
others NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
central NN O O
domains NN O O
of NN O O
impairment NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Many NN O O
interventions NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
improving NN O O
theory NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mind NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nonetheless NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
empirical NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
interventions NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O I-INT
theory NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mind NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
second NN O O
objective NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
which NN O O
subgroups NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
profit NN O O
most NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
include NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
theory NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mind NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
collected NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hypotheses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
strengths NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
limitations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Netherlands NN O O
Trial NN O O
Register NN O O
NTR2327 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23164311)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
developmental NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-OUT
asphyxia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
developing NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
early NN O I-INT
developmental NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EDI NN O O
) NN O O
improves NN O O
developmental NN O O
abilities NN O O
in NN O O
resuscitated NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
unresponsive NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
stimulation NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
bag NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
resuscitation NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
require NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
resuscitation NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Pakistan NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Zambia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
parent-implemented NN O I-INT
EDI NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
with NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
by NN O O
parent NN O O
trainers NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
starting NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
health NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
safety NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
during NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
schedule NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Mental NN O I-OUT
Development NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MDI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Bayley NN O O
Scales NN O O
of NN O O
Infant NN O O
Development NN O O
, NN O O
2nd NN O O
edition NN O O
, NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
by NN O O
evaluators NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
history NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
MDI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EDI NN O O
( NN O O
102.6 NN O O
? NN O O
9.8 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
resuscitated NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
98.0 NN O O
? NN O O
14.6 NN O O
, NN O O
1-sided NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0202 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonresuscitated NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
100.1 NN O O
? NN O O
10.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
97.7 NN O O
? NN O O
10.4 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.1392 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
Psychomotor NN O I-OUT
Development NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
EDI NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
resuscitated NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0430 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
nonresuscitated NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0164 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
home-based NN O O
, NN O O
parent NN O O
provided NN O O
EDI NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
resuscitated NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
provides NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
benefits NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MDI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Psychomotor NN O I-OUT
Development NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
nonresuscitated NN O O
and NN O I-PAR
resuscitated NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
within NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23173253)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Bi NN O O
syndrome NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
massage NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
Chinese NN O I-INT
materia NN O I-INT
medica NN O I-INT
footbath NN O I-INT
fumigation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
washing NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
KOA NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Bi NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
massage NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
Chinese NN O I-INT
materia NN O I-INT
medica NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CMM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
footbath NN O I-INT
fumigation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
washing NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Lysholm NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LKSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Totally NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
KOA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
massage NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
CMM NN O I-INT
footbath NN O I-INT
fumigation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
washing NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
meloxicam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
times NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
LKSS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
11 NN O O
markedly NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
ineffective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
5 NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
11 NN O O
markedly NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
ineffective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
LKSS NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
LKSS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
LKSS NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
times NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
LKSS NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
case NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
again NN O O
within NN O O
1-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
LKSS NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Massage NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
CMM NN O I-INT
footbath NN O I-INT
fumigation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
washing NN O I-INT
had NN O O
better NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
patients NN O O
suffering NN O O
from NN O O
KOA NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23185761)

[ NN O I-OUT
Therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
youdujing NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
papilloma NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
Youdujing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
YDJ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
the NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
papilloma NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HR-HPV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Totally NN O I-PAR
HR-HPV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
using NN O O
random NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
method NN O O
, NN O O
35 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

YDJ NN O I-INT
external NN O I-INT
lotion NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
YDJ NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

HR-HPV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
1st NN O O
menstruation NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cervical NN O O
biopsy NN O O
and NN O O
cervical NN O O
smear NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
vaginoscope NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
telomerase NN O I-OUT
reverse NN O I-OUT
transcriptase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hTERT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
from NN O O
fresh NN O O
tissues NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cervical NN O O
lesion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
96.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
70.00 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
treatment NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathological NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cervix NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hTERT NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hTERT NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Better NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pathological NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cervix NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hTERT NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
YDJ NN O I-INT
played NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
clearing NN O O
HR-HPV NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reversing NN O O
the NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
precancerous NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
possibly NN O O
through NN O O
down-regulating NN O O
the NN O O
mRNA NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
hTERT NN O O
and NN O O
lowering NN O O
the NN O O
telomerase NN O O
activation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23205617)

An NN O I-INT
internet-based NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
tinnitus NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
acceptance NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
, NN O O
trial NN O O
attrition NN O O
and NN O O
non-usage NN O O
attrition NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
on NN O O
tinnitus NN O O
have NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
Internet-based NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Other NN O O
core NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
service NN O O
, NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

acceptance NN O O
and NN O O
attrition NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
often NN O O
been NN O O
overlooked NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
analyses NN O O
Internet-based NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
regarding NN O O
acceptance NN O O
and NN O O
attrition NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
minimal-contact NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
tinnitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Whenever NN O O
possible NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
give NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
337 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
87 NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Internet NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Internet-based NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
face-to-face NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
34.48 NN O O
% NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
Internet-based NN O O
training NN O O
( NN O O
dropout NN O O
attrition NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
training NN O I-OUT
attrition NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
Internet-based NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
was NN O O
even NN O O
higher NN O O
at NN O O
64.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Two NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
indicators NN O O
for NN O O
acceptance-satisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
attrition-provide NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O O
results NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
Internet-based NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
face-to-face NN O O
group NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
third NN O O
indicator NN O O
, NN O O
training NN O I-OUT
attrition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
shows NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
result NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
research NN O O
should NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
attrition NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23229426)

Does NN O O
single NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
autologous NN O O
transfusion NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
TKA NN O I-PAR
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
allogenic NN O O
blood NN O O
? NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Mechanical NN O I-INT
autotransfusion NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
for NN O O
washed NN O O
shed NN O O
blood NN O O
( NN O O
WSB NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
introduced NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
allogenic NN O O
blood NN O O
transfusions NN O O
( NN O O
ABTs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
some NN O O
authors NN O O
have NN O O
postulated NN O O
decreased NN O O
requirements NN O O
for NN O O
ABT NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
autologous NN O O
retransfusion NN O O
devices NN O O
, NN O O
other NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
mostly NN O O
evaluating NN O O
retransfusion NN O O
devices NN O O
for NN O O
unwashed NN O O
shed NN O O
blood NN O O
( NN O O
USB NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
verified NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
ABT NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
contradictory NN O O
findings NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
unclear NN O O
whether NN O O
autologous NN O O
retransfusion NN O O
systems NN O O
for NN O O
WSB NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
transfusion NN O O
requirements NN O O
. NN O O

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES NN O O
We NN O O
therefore NN O O
asked NN O O
whether NN O O
one NN O O
such NN O O
autologous NN O O
transfusion NN O O
system NN O O
for NN O O
WSB NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
requirements NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
ABT NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
151 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
TKA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=76 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
autotransfusion NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
intraoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
WSB NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
retransfused NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
Control NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=75 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
drain NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
suction NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
used NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
anemia NN O O
and/or NN O O
a NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
value NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
8 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
as NN O O
indications NN O O
for NN O O
transfusion NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
necessary NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
administered NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
two NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
allogenic NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-three NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
283 NN O O
mL NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
160-406 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
salvaged NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
needed NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
2.1 NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
allogenic NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Control NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
who NN O O
needed NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
2.1 NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
allogenic NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
autotransfusion NN O O
system NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
ABTs NN O O
. NN O O

LEVEL NN O O
OF NN O O
EVIDENCE NN O O
Level NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

See NN O O
the NN O O
Guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
Authors NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
description NN O O
of NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
evidence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23241003)

Is NN O O
chronic NN O I-INT
sildenafil NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
safe NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
Sildenafil NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
phosphodiesterase-5 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
and NN O O
causes NN O O
vasodilatation NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
circulation NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
left NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
hypertension NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
proportion NN O O
to NN O O
left NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
106 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
1:1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sildenafil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=53 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=53 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
sildenafil NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
twice NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
matching NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
remainder NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
placebo-corrected NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.16 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
-1.6 NN O O
to NN O O
5.1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
that NN O O
sildenafil NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
decrease NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
the NN O O
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
P=.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
discontinue NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Sildenafil NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
left NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
decrease NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23323659)

Divergence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
student NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
educator NN O I-PAR
conceptual NN O I-PAR
structures NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
auscultation NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
Simulation-based NN O O
medical NN O O
education NN O O
allows NN O O
trainees NN O O
to NN O O
engage NN O O
in NN O O
self-regulated NN O O
learning NN O O
( NN O O
SRL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
research NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
elucidating NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
SRL NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
context NN O O
is NN O O
relatively NN O O
absent NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
'unguided NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
SRL NN O I-INT
with NN O O
'directed NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
SRL NN O I-INT
( NN O O
DSRL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
wherein NN O O
learners NN O O
followed NN O O
an NN O O
expert-designed NN O O
booklet NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Year NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
practise NN O I-PAR
identifying NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
murmurs NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
simulator NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SRL NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
simulator NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
booklet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
DSRL NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
22-item NN O O
test NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
compare NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
analysed NN O O
students NN O O
' NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
accuracy NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
evidence NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
documented NN O O
how NN O O
participants NN O O
autonomously NN O O
sequenced NN O O
the NN O O
seven NN O O
murmurs NN O O
during NN O O
initial NN O O
and NN O O
delayed NN O O
practice NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O I-PAR
surveyed NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
educators NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
find NN O O
out NN O O
how NN O O
they NN O O
would NN O O
sequence NN O O
their NN O O
teaching NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
murmurs NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
DSRL NN O O
group NN O O
used NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
training NN O O
time NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
SRL NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
' NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
accuracy NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
post-test NN O O
, NN O O
retention NN O O
test NN O O
or NN O O
transfer NN O O
test NN O O
items NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
practising NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
expert-defined NN O O
'timing-based NN O O
' NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
murmur NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

systolic NN O O
versus NN O O
diastolic NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
DSRL NN O O
participants NN O O
implemented NN O O
a NN O O
location-based NN O O
approach NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

practising NN O O
aortic NN O O
murmurs NN O O
separately NN O O
from NN O O
mitral NN O O
murmurs NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
, NN O O
unguided NN O O
practice NN O O
session NN O O
. NN O O

Notably NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
SRL NN O O
participants NN O O
used NN O O
that NN O O
same NN O O
approach NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
educators NN O O
were NN O O
split NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
timing-based NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
location-based NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
approaches NN O O
. NN O O

Chi-squared NN O O
analyses NN O O
suggested NN O O
educators NN O O
' NN O O
conceptions NN O O
for NN O O
organising NN O O
murmurs NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
students NN O O
' NN O O
conceptions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
predictions NN O O
, NN O O
directing NN O O
students NN O O
' NN O O
SRL NN O O
produced NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
practice NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
one NN O O
potential NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
divergence NN O O
between NN O O
student NN O O
and NN O O
educator NN O O
conceptions NN O O
for NN O O
structuring NN O O
the NN O O
practice NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
auscultation NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
well NN O O
articulated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
education NN O O
literature NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
important NN O O
implications NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
( NN O O
especially NN O O
technology-mediated NN O O
) NN O O
educational NN O O
contexts NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23332872)

Are NN O O
tyrosine NN O I-INT
kinase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
still NN O O
active NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tyrosine NN O I-INT
kinase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
everolimus NN O I-INT
? NN O O
Experience NN O O
of NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
France NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
RECORD-1 NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Because NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mRCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
typically NN O O
receive NN O O
multiple NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Guidelines NN O O
recommend NN O O
everolimus NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
previously NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tyrosine NN O I-INT
kinase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TKI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
sunitinib NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sorafenib NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
TKI NN O I-INT
re-treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
TKI-everolimus NN O I-INT
sequence NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
RECORD-1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Renal NN O I-PAR
Cell NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Oral NN O I-PAR
RAD001 NN O I-PAR
Given NN O I-PAR
Daily NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
French NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
TKI-everolimus-TKI NN O I-INT
sequence NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
TKI NN O I-INT
after NN O O
everolimus NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
sunitinib NN O I-INT
in NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
sorafenib NN O I-INT
in NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
dovitinib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TKI258 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
TKI NN O I-INT
re-treatment NN O O
was NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
disease-control NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
stable NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
each NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TKI-everolimus-TKI NN O I-INT
sequence NN O O
was NN O O
10.7 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.8-28.5 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
8.9 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.7-34.6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8.2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
5.2-11.9 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
everolimus NN O I-INT
was NN O O
29.1 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
21.1 NN O O
to NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
using NN O O
TKI NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
TKI-everolimus-TKI NN O I-INT
sequence NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
prospectively NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23337964)

[ NN O O
Antiinflammatory NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O I-INT
plant NN O I-INT
extracts NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ultraviolet NN O O
erythema NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Phytotherapeutics NN O O
are NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
medicine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
plant NN O I-INT
extracts NN O I-INT
using NN O O
the NN O O
ultraviolet- NN O O
( NN O O
UV NN O O
) NN O O
-erythema NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
on NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Test NN O O
areas NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
back NN O O
were NN O O
irradiated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
1.5 NN O I-INT
fold NN O I-INT
UV-B NN O I-INT
minimal NN O I-INT
erythema NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MED NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Formulations NN O O
of NN O O
Aloe NN O I-INT
vera NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Chamomilla NN O I-INT
recutita NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Hamamelis NN O I-INT
virginiana NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Melissa NN O I-INT
officinalis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Mentha NN O I-INT
arvensis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Melaleuca NN O I-INT
alternifolia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Coriandrum NN O I-INT
sativum NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
betamethasone NN O I-INT
valerate NN O I-INT
as NN O O
positive NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
unguentum NN O I-INT
leniens NN O I-INT
as NN O O
vehicle NN O O
control NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
under NN O O
occlusion NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
irradiated NN O O
areas NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
non-irradiated NN O O
area NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
contralateral NN O O
side NN O O
. NN O O

Photometric NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
erythema NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
substances NN O O
( NN O O
t0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
t1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
t2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-INT
Aloe NN O I-INT
vera NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Chamomilla NN O I-INT
recutita NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Melissa NN O I-INT
officinalis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Melaleuca NN O I-INT
alternifolia NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Coriandrum NN O I-INT
sativum NN O I-INT
showed NN O I-INT
an NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
UV-control NN O O
and NN O O
unguentum NN O O
leniens NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
only NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
Aloe NN O O
vera NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
tested NN O O
plant NN O O
extracts NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Aloe NN O I-INT
vera NN O I-INT
possesses NN O I-INT
an NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
UV-induced NN O O
erythemas NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23339584)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
antenatal NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Few NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
depression NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
looking NN O O
at NN O O
treating NN O O
depression NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
delivering NN O O
a NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
modified NN O O
for NN O O
antenatal NN O O
depression NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Bristol NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
8-18 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
routine NN O I-PAR
contact NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
midwives NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
with NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
randomisation NN O I-PAR
if NN O O
they NN O O
screened NN O O
positive NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
3-question NN O O
depression NN O O
screen NN O O
used NN O O
routinely NN O O
by NN O I-PAR
midwives NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
ICD-10 NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
interview NN O I-PAR
schedule NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
revised NN O I-PAR
version NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CIS-R NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
therapists NN O O
delivered NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-randomisation NN O O
when NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
made NN O O
using NN O O
measures NN O O
which NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
CIS-R NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
ICD-10 NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
usual NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
completed NN O O
9 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
rates NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-randomisation NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
33 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-randomisation NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
15 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-randomisation NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
11/16 NN O O
; NN O O
68.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
recovered NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

no NN O O
longer NN O O
met NN O O
ICD-10 NN O O
criteria NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
only NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
( NN O O
5/13 NN O O
; NN O O
38.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
shows NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
conducting NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
RCT NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
treating NN O O
antenatal NN O O
depression NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
delivered NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
antenatal NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ISRCTN44902048 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23394513)

Antihistamines NN O I-INT
do NN O O
not NN O O
inhibit NN O O
the NN O O
wheal NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
intradermal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
autologous NN O O
serum NN O O
in NN O O
resistant NN O O
chronic NN O O
idiopathic NN O O
urticaria NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
urticaria NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CIU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
antihistamines NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AHs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
check NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
wheal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flare NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
intradermal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
by NN O O
histamine NN O I-INT
differs NN O O
in NN O O
AH-resistant NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
AH NN O I-PAR
responder NN O I-PAR
CIU NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CIU NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
fexofenadine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
180 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
q.d NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O O
AH NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
tablets NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
improvement NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
urticaria NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
fexofenadine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
180 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CIU NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
failure NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
full NN O O
8-week NN O O
fourfold NN O O
fexofenadine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
resistant NN O O
CIU NN O O
( NN O O
R-CIU NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sex- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
patents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
AS NN O O
skin NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
intradermal NN O O
histamine-induced NN O I-INT
wheal NN O O
and NN O O
flare NN O O
reaction NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
without NN O O
AH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
under NN O O
AH NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CIU NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
R-CIU NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Under NN O O
AH NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
intradermal NN O I-OUT
histamine NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
diminished NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
R-CIU NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
fexofenadine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
180 NN O O
mg NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
suppress NN O O
AS-induced NN O I-OUT
wheal NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.96 NN O O
? NN O O
2.25 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.85 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
fourfold NN O I-INT
AH NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
some NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AS-induced NN O I-OUT
wheal NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.79 NN O O
? NN O O
1.74 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
but NN O O
remained NN O O
larger NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CIU NN O O
( NN O O
2.31 NN O O
? NN O O
1.12 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
2.52 NN O O
? NN O O
1.36 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.037 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AHs NN O I-INT
do NN O O
not NN O O
inhibit NN O O
the NN O O
wheal NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
intradermal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
AS NN O O
in NN O O
R-CIU NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23405154)

Is NN O O
altered NN O O
central NN O O
pain NN O O
processing NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
disease NN O O
stage NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
An NN O O
exploratory NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
most NN O O
dominant NN O O
feature NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
is NN O O
intense NN O O
abdominal NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
spinal NN O O
and/or NN O O
supraspinal NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
pain NN O O
processing NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
visceral NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
input NN O O
play NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

How NN O O
altered NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
disease NN O O
stage NN O O
still NN O O
needs NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
M-ANNHEIM NN O O
severity NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
; NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

moderate NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electric NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
selected NN O O
dermatomes NN O O
( NN O O
C5 NN O O
, NN O O
T4 NN O O
, NN O O
T10 NN O O
, NN O O
L1 NN O O
, NN O O
L4 NN O O
and NN O O
T10BACK NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
conditioned NN O O
pain NN O I-INT
modulation NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
to NN O O
cold NN O I-INT
pressor NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Severe NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
lower NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
moderate NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
healthy NN O O
volunteers NN O O
. NN O O

Healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
conditioned NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
modulation NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
chronic NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
taken NN O O
together NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
chronic NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
patients NN O O
show NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
altered NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
of NN O O
nociception NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
further NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

central NN O O
sensitization NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
disease NN O O
stage NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
underline NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
altered NN O O
central NN O O
pain NN O O
processing NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
when NN O O
managing NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23410851)

Family NN O I-INT
economic NN O I-INT
empowerment NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
among NN O O
AIDS-affected NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
AIDS-impacted NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
southwestern NN O I-PAR
Uganda NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
innovative NN O O
family NN O I-INT
economic NN O I-INT
empowerment NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
addresses NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
functioning NN O O
of NN O O
AIDS-affected NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
heavily NN O I-PAR
impacted NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
HIV/AIDS NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Uganda NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=179 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=118 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
family NN O I-INT
economic NN O I-INT
empowerment NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
hopelessness NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
comprised NN O O
matched NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
savings NN O I-INT
accounts NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
financial NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
workshops NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mentorship NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Using NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
with NN O O
several NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
find NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
) NN O O
report NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
reduces NN O O
hopelessness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
) NN O O
report NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
HIV/AIDS NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
innovative NN O O
family NN O O
economic NN O O
empowerment NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
functioning NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
hopelessness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
long-term NN O O
negative NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
and NN O O
developmental NN O O
impacts NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
have NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
programmes NN O O
intended NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
support NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
resource NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
AIDS-impacted NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23414585)

Ganitumab NN O I-INT
with NN O O
either NN O O
exemestane NN O I-INT
or NN O O
fulvestrant NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hormone-receptor-positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Insulin-like NN O O
growth NN O O
factors NN O O
( NN O O
IGF-1 NN O O
and NN O O
IGF-2 NN O O
) NN O O
bind NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
IGF-1 NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
IGF-1R NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
cell NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ganitumab NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
IgG1 NN O O
antibody NN O O
that NN O O
blocks NN O O
IGF-1R NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adding NN O O
ganitumab NN O O
to NN O O
endocrine NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormone-receptor-positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
this NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormone-receptor-positive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endocrine NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
( NN O O
2:1 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
central NN O O
randomisation NN O O
schedule NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
ganitumab NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
bodyweight NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
open-label NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
fulvestrant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
29 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
exemestane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
28-day NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
, NN O O
investigators NN O O
, NN O O
study NN O O
monitors NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
sponsor NN O O
staff NN O O
were NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
allocation NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
analysed NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00626106 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
189 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
156 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
106 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ganitumab NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
ganitumab NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
3?9 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3?6-5?3 NN O O
vs NN O O
5?7 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
4?4-7?4 NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
1?17 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?91-1?50 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0?44 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
worse NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
the NN O O
ganitumab NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1?78 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1?27-2?50 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0?025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
hyperglycaemia NN O O
, NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
neutropenia-reported NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
106 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
ganitumab NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Hyperglycaemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
12 NN O O
of NN O O
106 NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ganitumab NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
having NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
hyperglycaemia NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
27 NN O O
of NN O O
106 NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ganitumab NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ganitumab NN O I-INT
to NN O O
endocrine NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
hormone-receptor-positive NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
ganitumab NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Amgen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23481373)

Development NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Therapist NN O I-PAR
Empathy NN O O
Scale NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Few NN O O
measures NN O O
exist NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
therapist NN O I-PAR
empathy NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
session NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
A NN O O
9-item NN O O
observer NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
called NN O O
the NN O O
Therapist NN O I-INT
Empathy NN O I-INT
Scale NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TES NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
Watson NN O O
's NN O O
( NN O O
1999 NN O O
) NN O O
work NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
affective NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O O
, NN O O
attitudinal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
attunement NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
therapist NN O O
empathy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
inter-rater NN O O
reliability NN O O
, NN O O
internal NN O O
consistency NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
construct NN O O
and NN O O
criterion NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TES NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Raters NN O O
evaluated NN O O
therapist NN O I-PAR
empathy NN O O
in NN O O
315 NN O I-PAR
client NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
therapists NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multi-site NN O I-PAR
therapist NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Martino NN O I-PAR
et NN O I-PAR
al. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
2010 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Motivational NN O I-INT
Interviewing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Inter-rater NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ICC NN O O
= NN O O
.87 NN O O
to NN O O
.91 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
internal NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Cronbach NN O O
's NN O O
alpha NN O O
= NN O O
.94 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

Confirmatory NN O O
factor NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
some NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
single-factor NN O O
fit NN O O
. NN O O

Convergent NN O I-OUT
validity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
TES NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
fundamental NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
range NN O O
.50 NN O O
to NN O O
.67 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
competence NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
range NN O O
.56 NN O O
to NN O O
.69 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Discriminant NN O I-OUT
validity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
negative NN O O
or NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
TES NN O O
and NN O O
MI-inconsistent NN O O
behavior NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
range NN O O
.05 NN O O
to NN O O
-.33 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
TES NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
excellent NN O O
inter-rater NN O O
reliability NN O O
and NN O O
internal NN O O
consistency NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
indicate NN O O
some NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
single-factor NN O O
solution NN O O
and NN O O
convergent NN O O
and NN O O
discriminant NN O O
validity NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
should NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TES NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
therapist NN O I-PAR
empathy NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
approaches NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
therapist NN O O
empathy NN O O
on NN O O
client NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23482762)

Satisfactory NN O O
sampling NN O O
in NN O O
cytological NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIM NN O O
Inadequate NN O O
cervical NN O O
sampling NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
misdiagnosis NN O O
in NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
PapCone? NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Ayre NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
spatula NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cytobrush NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
collect NN O O
ectocervical NN O O
and NN O O
glandular NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
ecto-endocervical NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
methods NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
three-month NN O I-PAR
interval NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Qualitative NN O O
and NN O O
quantitative NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Ultrastructure NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sampling NN O I-OUT
devices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
scanning NN O O
electron NN O O
microscopy NN O O
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
sampling NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
test NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
: NN O O
PapCone? NN O O
caused NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
overlap NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sampled NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
metaplastic NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SEM NN O O
evaluation NN O I-OUT
highlighted NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
porous NN O O
and NN O O
spongy NN O O
structure NN O O
of NN O O
PapCone? NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
glandular NN O O
cells NN O O
on NN O O
its NN O O
surface NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Cervical NN O O
smears NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
PapCone? NN O O
were NN O O
adequate NN O O
and NN O O
generally NN O O
easier NN O O
to NN O O
screen NN O O
than NN O O
conventionally NN O O
performed NN O O
ones NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23500669)

MEG NN O I-OUT
premotor NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
Children NN O O
with NN O O
Asperger NN O O
's NN O O
syndrome NN O O
show NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
their NN O O
intellectual NN O O
and NN O O
language NN O O
development NN O O
is NN O O
intact NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
mediating NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
action NN O O
observation/execution NN O O
matching NN O O
system NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
one NN O O
such NN O O
mechanism NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
indeed NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
electrophysiological NN O I-OUT
modulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Mu-rhythm NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
10-12Hz NN O O
range NN O O
is NN O O
weaker NN O O
when NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
Asperger NN O O
's NN O O
syndrome NN O O
observe NN O O
actions NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
others NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
electrophysiological NN O O
studies NN O O
typically NN O O
fall NN O O
short NN O O
in NN O O
revealing NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
generators NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
fill NN O O
this NN O O
gap NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
magnetoencephalographic NN O I-OUT
Mu-modulations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
while NN O O
observing NN O I-INT
grasping NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mu-power NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
at NN O O
frontal NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
sensors NN O O
during NN O O
movement NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
modulation NN O O
was NN O O
stronger NN O O
in NN O O
typical NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
Asperger NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Source NN O I-OUT
localization NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
stronger NN O O
sources NN O O
in NN O O
premotor NN O O
cortex NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intraparietal NN O O
lobule NN O O
( NN O O
IPL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mid-occipito-temporal NN O O
gyrus NN O O
( NN O O
MOTG NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
weaker NN O O
sources NN O O
in NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
in NN O O
typical NN O O
participants NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Asperger NN O O
. NN O O

Activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
premotor NN O I-OUT
regions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IPL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MOTG NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
positively NN O O
with NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
Mu-sources NN O O
correlated NN O O
negatively NN O O
with NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
correlation NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
intellectual NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
localize NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
Mu-activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
of NN O O
Asperger NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
providing NN O O
evidence NN O O
which NN O O
associates NN O O
motor-system NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
with NN O O
social-function NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23514246)

Early-stage NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
oropharynx NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
trans-oral NN O I-INT
robotic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ORATOR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
oropharyngeal NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OPSCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
markedly NN O O
increased NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
three NN O O
decades NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
newly NN O O
found NN O O
associations NN O O
with NN O O
human NN O O
papillomavirus NN O O
( NN O O
HPV NN O O
) NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
OPSCC NN O O
at NN O O
most NN O O
centers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
decade NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

Transoral NN O I-INT
robotic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TORS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
emerged NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
preliminary NN O O
case NN O O
series NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
encouraging NN O O
oncologic NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
( NN O O
QOL NN O O
) NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
comparisons NN O O
of NN O O
TORS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
non-randomized NN O O
fashion NN O O
are NN O O
susceptible NN O O
to NN O O
bias NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
TORS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
chemo NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
with NN O O
OPSCC NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
target NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
comprises NN O I-PAR
OPSCC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
would NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
unlikely NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
require NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
post-resection NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Tumor NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
T1-T2 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
likely NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
margins NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
Nodal NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
N0-2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
?3 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
extranodal NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
imaging NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
1:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
between NN O O
Arm NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Arm NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
TORS NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
chemo NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
Arm NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
N0 NN O O
disease NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
whereas NN O O
N1-2 NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
chemoradiation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
Arm NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
undergo NN O I-INT
TORS NN O I-INT
along NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
neck NN O I-INT
dissections NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
be NN O O
staged NN O O
. NN O O

Pathologic NN O O
high-risk NN O O
features NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
requirement NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
+/- NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
endpoint NN O O
is NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
M.D NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Anderson NN O I-OUT
Dysphagia NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MDADI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
endpoints NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
swallowing NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
successful NN O O
, NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
much-needed NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
RT NN O O
vs. NN O O
the NN O O
novel NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
TORS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
definitive NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
comparison NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
inform NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
eventual NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NCT01590355 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23518801)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
upright NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
upright NN O O
sitting NN O O
or NN O O
beachchair NN O O
position NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
hypoperfusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
with NN O O
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
, NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
would NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
shoulder NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
being NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
upright NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

Simultaneous NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
middle NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
transthoracic NN O I-OUT
echocardiography NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
made NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
commencement NN O O
of NN O O
PE NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
77 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
67 NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
further NN O O
to NN O O
59 NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
upright NN O O
positioning NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
upright NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
saline NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
values NN O O
remaining NN O O
at NN O O
room-air NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Middle NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Phenylephrine NN O O
prevented NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
upright NN O O
position NN O O
primarily NN O O
by NN O O
maintaining NN O O
preload NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Despite NN O O
maintaining NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
with NN O O
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
desaturation NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
upright NN O O
positioning NN O O
. NN O O

Cerebral NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
endpoint NN O O
when NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vasopressor NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
cerebral NN O O
perfusion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23539079)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
weighted NN O I-INT
sled NN O I-INT
towing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
heavy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
light NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sprint NN O I-OUT
acceleration NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Weighted NN O I-INT
sled NN O I-INT
towing NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
by NN O O
athletes NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
improve NN O O
sprint NN O I-OUT
acceleration NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
typical NN O O
coaching NN O O
recommendation NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
relatively NN O O
light NN O O
loads NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
excessively NN O O
heavy NN O O
loads NN O O
are NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
to NN O O
disrupt NN O O
running NN O O
mechanics NN O O
and NN O O
be NN O O
detrimental NN O O
to NN O O
sprint NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
coaching NN O O
recommendation NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
empirically NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
weighted NN O I-INT
sled NN O I-INT
towing NN O I-INT
with NN O O
2 NN O O
different NN O O
external NN O O
loads NN O O
on NN O O
sprint NN O I-OUT
acceleration NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
physically NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
heavy- NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
light-load NN O I-INT
weighted NN O I-INT
sled NN O I-INT
towing NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
subjects NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
training NN O O
sessions NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heavy NN O O
and NN O O
light NN O O
groups NN O O
performed NN O O
weighted NN O O
sled NN O O
towing NN O O
using NN O O
external NN O O
loads NN O O
that NN O O
reduced NN O O
sprint NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
10-m NN O O
sprint NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
split NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
m NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
heavy NN O O
group NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
5- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
10-m NN O I-OUT
sprint NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
5.7 NN O O
? NN O O
5.7 NN O O
and NN O O
5.0 NN O O
? NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
10-m NN O I-OUT
sprint NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
by NN O O
3.0 NN O O
? NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
light NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
5-m NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
10-m NN O I-OUT
sprint NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
posttraining NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
question NN O O
the NN O O
notion NN O O
that NN O O
training NN O O
loads NN O O
that NN O O
induce NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
sprint NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
would NN O I-OUT
negatively NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
sprint NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
point NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
heavier NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
weighted NN O I-INT
sled NN O I-INT
towing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (23610236)

A NN O O
play NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
teachers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
pilot NN O O
test NN O O
a NN O O
classroom-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
facilitating NN O O
play NN O O
and NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
self-contained NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
classrooms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
classroom NN O I-PAR
teachers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
preschool NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
teachers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
symbolic NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
symbolic NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
further NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
teachers NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
weekly NN O O
individualized NN O O
1-h NN O O
sessions NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
researcher NN O O
that NN O O
emphasized NN O O
embedding NN O O
strategies NN O O
targeting NN O O
symbolic NN O O
play NN O O
and NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
into NN O O
their NN O O
everyday NN O O
classroom NN O O
routines NN O O
and NN O O
activities NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
child NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
through NN O O
direct NN O O
classroom NN O O
observations NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
teachers NN O O
can NN O O
implement NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
classrooms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
multilevel NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symbolic NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
pilot NN O O
data NN O O
emphasize NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
classroom-based NN O O
interventions NN O O
targeting NN O O
play NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23611569)

Vilazodone NN O I-INT
lacks NN O O
proarrhythmogenic NN O O
potential NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
thorough NN O O
ECG NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Vilazodone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
serotonin NN O O
reuptake NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
and NN O O
5-HT1A NN O O
receptor NN O O
partial NN O O
agonist NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
supratherapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
vilazodone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
repolarization NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
doubleblind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
active-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
3-arm NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vilazodone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
sequentially NN O O
escalated NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
time-matched NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QT NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QTc NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
an NN O O
individual NN O O
correction NN O O
method NN O O
( NN O O
QTcI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Placebo-corrected NN O I-INT
time-matched NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
QTcI NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
vilazodone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
vilazodone NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
upper NN O O
bound NN O O
that NN O O
approached NN O O
or NN O O
exceeded NN O O
10 NN O O
ms NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
no NN O O
signal NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
vilazodone NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
repolarization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Vilazodone NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
QRS NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic NN O O
model NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
QTcI NN O I-OUT
slope NN O O
for NN O O
vilazodone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
0.0 NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
predicted NN O O
increase NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QTc NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
156 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
after NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
ms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vilazodone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
57.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
37.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
35.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
generally NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
in NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
few NN O O
discontinuations NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Vilazodone NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
repolarization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
QRS NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
morphology NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23621350)

Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
hypoallergenic NN O I-INT
Bet NN O I-INT
v NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
environmental NN O O
exposure NN O O
chamber NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Recombinant NN O O
allergens NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
specific NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
SIT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
find NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
hypoallergenic NN O O
folding NN O O
variant NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
Bet NN O I-INT
v NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rBet NN O I-INT
v NN O I-INT
1-FV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
SIT NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
birch NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
allergy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Before NN O O
SIT NN O O
, NN O O
thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
environmental NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
chamber NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
EEC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
birch NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
concentration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3500 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
500 NN O I-PAR
grains/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
maintenance NN O O
dose NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O I-INT
rBet NN O I-INT
v NN O I-INT
1-FV NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
: NN O O
20 NN O O
?g NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
?g NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
160 NN O O
?g NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
320 NN O O
?g NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
weekly NN O O
injections NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
re-exposed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EEC NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
SIT NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EEC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
active NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-18.8 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
-71.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0022 NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
?g NN O O
; NN O O
-75.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0007 NN O O
for NN O O
80 NN O O
?g NN O O
; NN O O
-81.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0009 NN O O
for NN O O
160 NN O O
?g NN O O
; NN O O
-78.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
for NN O O
320 NN O O
?g NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IgG1 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
active NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
four NN O O
active NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
two NN O I-OUT
Grade NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
EAACI NN O O
classification NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
160- NN O O
and NN O O
320-?g NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Considering NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
immunological NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
maintenance NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O O
?g NN O O
of NN O I-INT
rBet NN O I-INT
v NN O I-INT
1-FV NN O I-INT
appears NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
ideal NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
allergen NN O O
immunotherapy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
birch NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23630033)

Study NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
rationale NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
LX4211 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
dual NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
SGLT1 NN O O
and NN O O
SGLT2 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
inadequately NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-PAR
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sodium-glucose NN O O
cotransporters NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
SGLT1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
SGLT2 NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
cellular NN O O
transporters NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
( NN O O
GI NN O O
) NN O O
glucose NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
renal NN O O
glucose NN O O
reabsorption NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

LX4211 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
dual NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
SGLT1 NN O O
and NN O O
SGLT2 NN O O
, NN O O
reduces NN O O
glucose NN O O
absorption NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
GI NN O O
tract NN O O
and NN O O
enhances NN O O
urinary NN O O
glucose NN O O
excretion NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
several NN O O
SGLT2-selective NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
large NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
dual NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
SGLT1 NN O O
and NN O O
SGLT2 NN O O
is NN O O
novel NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
clinical-trial NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
rationale NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LX4211 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-PAR
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
glycated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
A1c NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
include NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
achieving NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
glycated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
A1c NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postprandial NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
part NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Safety NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
particular NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
genitourinary NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23688830)

The NN O O
Pain NN O O
Course NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clinician-guided NN O I-INT
Internet-delivered NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
managing NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
emotional NN O I-PAR
well-being NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clinician-guided NN O I-INT
Internet-delivered NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iCBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
Pain NN O I-INT
Course NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-three NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
Treatment NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
waitlist NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
iCBT-based NN O I-INT
lessons NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
homework NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
resources NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
e-mail NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O I-INT
Psychologist NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
automated NN O I-INT
e-mails NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty-nine NN O O
of NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
lessons NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
8-week NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
and NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
30/31 NN O O
and NN O O
29/31 NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
obtained NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
than NN O O
Control NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
in NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
improvements NN O O
corresponded NN O O
to NN O O
small NN O O
to NN O O
large NN O O
between-groups NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
( NN O O
Cohen NN O O
's NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
for NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
.88 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
.38 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
.66 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
.64 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O O
rated NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
as NN O O
highly NN O O
acceptable NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinician NN O O
spent NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
81.54 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
30.91 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
contacting NN O O
participants NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
appear NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
iCBT NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
clinician-guided NN O I-INT
iCBT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
people NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2371368)

Haloperidol NN O I-INT
blood NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
schizoaffective NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
progress NN O O
report NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
window NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
acutely NN O I-PAR
exacerbating NN O I-PAR
schizophrenic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
schizoaffective NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HAL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
2-13 NN O O
, NN O O
13.1-24 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
24.1-35 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
levels NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
50 NN O O
percent NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Brief NN O I-OUT
Psychiatric NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BPRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
111 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
any NN O O
consistent NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
haloperidol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
plasma NN O O
range NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
more NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23753523)

Effect NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
contraction NN O I-INT
mode NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
protein NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
STARS NN O I-PAR
signalling NN O I-PAR
pathway NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
striated NN O O
muscle NN O O
activator NN O O
of NN O O
Rho NN O O
signalling NN O O
( NN O O
STARS NN O O
) NN O O
pathway NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
external NN O O
stress NN O O
responses NN O O
and NN O O
transcriptional NN O O
regulation NN O O
in NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
STARS NN O O
signalling NN O O
to NN O O
different NN O O
mechanical NN O O
stresses NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
STARS NN O O
signalling NN O O
pathway NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
unilateral NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
as NN O O
either NN O O
eccentric NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
concentric NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CONC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
contractions NN O I-INT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
prolonged NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
whey NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
STARS NN O O
, NN O O
myocardian-related NN O O
transcription NN O O
factor-A NN O O
( NN O O
MRTF-A NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
response NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
SRF NN O O
) NN O O
mRNA NN O O
and NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
muscle NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
maximal NN O O
voluntary NN O O
contraction NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single-bout NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
STARS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SRF NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MRTF-A NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
ECC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CONC NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
enhanced NN O O
response NN O O
occurring NN O O
following NN O O
ECC NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
STARS NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
exclusively NN O O
after NN O O
CONC NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
pSRF NN O I-OUT
protein NN O O
levels NN O O
increased NN O O
similarly NN O O
by NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
CONC NN O O
and NN O O
ECC NN O O
exercise NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Prolonged NN O O
ECC NN O O
and NN O O
CONC NN O O
training NN O O
equally NN O O
stimulated NN O O
muscle NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
and NN O O
produced NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
MRTF-A NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
125 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
changes NN O O
occurred NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
SRF NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
whey NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
resistance NN O O
exercise NN O O
provides NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
STARS NN O I-OUT
pathway NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
is NN O O
contraction NN O O
mode NN O O
dependent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
than NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
accumulated NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
STARS NN O O
signalling NN O O
is NN O O
primarily NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
muscle NN O O
adaptations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23778526)

Markers NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
predict NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
host NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
vital NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
carcinogenesis NN O O
and NN O O
tumour NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
white-cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelets NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pre-treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
multivariable NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
generated NN O I-INT
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
established NN O O
prognostic NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
calcium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
prognostic NN O I-INT
classification NN O I-INT
incorporating NN O O
additional NN O O
information NN O O
from NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
416 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
362 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Elevated NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
neutrophil-lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significant NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
for NN O O
shorter NN O O
OS NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
with NN O O
established NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
improves NN O O
the NN O O
discriminatory NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
classification NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
established NN O O
factors NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
C-statistic NN O O
0.673 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.654 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
25.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
more NN O O
appropriately NN O O
classified NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
classification NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Markers NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammation NN O O
contribute NN O O
significantly NN O O
to NN O O
prognostic NN O O
classification NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
established NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
pre-treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
RCC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Upon NN O O
validation NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
in NN O O
independent NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
stratification NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
these NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23828383)

Serum NN O O
selenium NN O I-INT
concentration NN O O
and NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
chemo NN O O
and NN O O
radio NN O O
therapies NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O O
trace NN O O
elements NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
blood NN O O
serum NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Among NN O O
104 NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chemo- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Plasma NN O O
Se NN O O
, NN O O
Zn NN O O
, NN O O
Cu NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
enzymatic NN O O
antioxidants NN O O
activities NN O O
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
decreased NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
trace NN O I-OUT
elements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
peroxidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glutathion NN O I-OUT
reductase NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increased NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
Se NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Zn NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Simultaneously NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
glutathione NN O I-OUT
peroxidase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glutathion NN O I-OUT
reductase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trace NN O I-OUT
elements NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
blood NN O O
serum NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2382949)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypotensive NN O I-PAR
eye NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
eye NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
thiopentone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
suxamethonium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
d-tubocurarine NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
ventilated NN O O
with NN O O
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
halothane NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
enflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
volatile NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
80 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volatile NN O I-OUT
agent NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
producing NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
enflurane NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
MAC NN O O
equivalents NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
agents NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
speed NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23857884)

CT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MRI NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tibial NN O I-OUT
tubercle-trochlear NN O I-OUT
groove NN O I-OUT
distances NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
not NN O O
equivalent NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
patellar NN O I-PAR
instability NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Tibial NN O I-OUT
tubercle-trochlear NN O I-OUT
groove NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TT-TG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
measurement NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
patellofemoral NN O I-PAR
malalignment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
instability NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
measurement NN O O
has NN O O
historically NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
utilizing NN O O
axial NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
( NN O O
CT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
recently NN O O
, NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
MRI NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
equivalent NN O O
method NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
fully NN O O
validated NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
reliability NN O O
of NN O O
TT-TG NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
both NN O O
MRI NN O O
and NN O O
CT NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
measurements NN O O
are NN O O
interchangeable NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
another NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Cohort NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
Level NN O O
of NN O O
evidence NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
patellar NN O I-PAR
instability NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MRI NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
knees NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
fellowship-trained NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O O
radiologists NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
TT-TG NN O I-OUT
distances NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
by NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MRI NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Interobserver NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
between NN O O
radiologists NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
imaging NN O O
modalities NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
intermethod NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
imaging NN O O
modalities NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
using NN O O
intraclass NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficients NN O O
( NN O O
ICCs NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Bland-Altman NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
59 NN O O
knees NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
TT-TG NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
16.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
8.3-25.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
CT NN O O
and NN O O
14.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1.5-25.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
MRI NN O O
. NN O O

Interobserver NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
radiologists NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
excellent NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ICC NN O O
= NN O O
0.777 NN O O
and NN O O
0.843 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
comparing NN O O
CT NN O O
to NN O O
MRI NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ICC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
only NN O O
fair NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
raters NN O O
( NN O O
0.532 NN O O
and NN O O
0.539 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eleven NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
TT-TG NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
?20 NN O O
mm NN O O
on NN O O
CT NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
underwent NN O I-OUT
distal NN O I-OUT
realignment NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
tibial NN O O
tubercle NN O O
osteotomy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
surgical NN O O
subgroup NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
TT-TG NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
22.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
19.8-25.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
CT NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
18.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
14.4-22.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
MRI NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
3.80 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
TT-TG NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
can NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
excellent NN O I-OUT
interrater NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
MRI NN O O
and NN O O
CT NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
tests NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
interchangeable NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
observation NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
into NN O O
consideration NN O O
when NN O O
MRI NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O O
planning NN O O
because NN O O
MRI NN O O
may NN O O
underestimate NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
TT-TG NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23865673)

Unexpected NN O O
random NN O O
urinary NN O O
protein NN O O
: NN O O
creatinine NN O O
ratio NN O O
results-limitations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pyrocatechol NN O I-INT
violet-dye NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
For NN O O
clinicians NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
rely NN O O
on NN O O
accurate NN O O
laboratory NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
optimal NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
resources NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
our NN O O
observations NN O O
that NN O O
urine NN O O
protein NN O O
: NN O O
creatinine NN O O
ratios NN O O
( NN O O
PrCr NN O O
) NN O O
?30 NN O O
mg/mmol NN O O
are NN O O
seen NN O O
not NN O O
infrequently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Urine NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
prospectively NN O O
from NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
maternity NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
facility NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Urinary NN O I-PAR
protein NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pyrocatechol NN O I-INT
violet NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
urinary NN O O
creatinine NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
enzymatic NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Vitros NN O I-INT
analysers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Maternal/perinatal NN O I-INT
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
abstracted NN O O
from NN O O
hospital NN O O
records NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
91/233 NN O O
( NN O O
39.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
samples NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
PrCr NN O O
?30 NN O O
mg/mmol NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
when NN O O
urinary NN O O
creatinine NN O O
concentration NN O O
was NN O O
< NN O O
3 NN O O
mM NN O O
( NN O O
94.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
?3 NN O O
mM NN O O
( NN O O
16.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
sample NN O O
before NN O O
delivery NN O O
, NN O O
47/160 NN O O
( NN O O
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
PrCr NN O O
?30 NN O O
mg/mmol NN O O
in NN O O
diluted NN O O
urine NN O O
vs. NN O O
only NN O O
17/160 NN O O
( NN O O
15.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
concentrated NN O O
urine NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
PrCr NN O O
positive NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
32 NN O O
( NN O O
20.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
known NN O O
normal NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
90.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
analyser NN O O
, NN O O
0.12 NN O O
g/L NN O O
urinary NN O O
protein NN O O
was NN O O
'detected NN O O
' NN O O
in NN O O
deionised NN O O
water NN O O
. NN O O

Re-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
cohorts NN O O
revealed NN O O
substantially NN O O
less NN O O
inflation NN O O
of NN O O
PrCr NN O O
in NN O O
dilute NN O O
urine NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
pyrogallol NN O O
red NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Random NN O O
urinary NN O O
PrCr NN O O
was NN O O
overestimated NN O O
in NN O O
dilute NN O O
urine NN O O
when NN O O
tested NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
pyrocatechol NN O I-INT
violet NN O I-INT
dye-based NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
cohorts NN O O
when NN O O
pyrogallol NN O O
red NN O O
assays NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

False NN O O
positive NN O O
results NN O O
can NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
highlights NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
quality NN O O
improvement NN O O
projects NN O O
and NN O O
standardization NN O O
of NN O O
laboratory NN O O
protein NN O O
measurement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23869063)

Intravenous NN O O
adenosine NN O I-INT
activates NN O O
diffuse NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
controls NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Experimentally NN O O
induced NN O O
pain NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
attenuated NN O O
by NN O O
concomitant NN O O
heterotopic NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
stimuli NN O O
( NN O O
counterirritation NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Animal NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
stems NN O O
from NN O O
supraspinal NN O I-OUT
diffuse NN O I-OUT
noxious NN O I-OUT
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
controls NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DNICs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
triggered NN O O
by NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
A? NN O O
fibers NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
humans NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
noxious NN O O
stimuli NN O O
induce NN O O
counterirritation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
points NN O O
at NN O O
C NN O O
fibers NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacologically NN O O
stimulating NN O O
C NN O O
fibers NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Intravenous NN O O
adenosine NN O O
activates NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
C NN O O
fibers NN O O
and NN O O
induces NN O O
dyspnea NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
tests NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
putative NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
C NN O O
fibers NN O O
by NN O I-INT
adenosine NN O I-INT
would NN O O
trigger NN O I-OUT
DNICs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
induce NN O I-OUT
counterirritation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twelve NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
valid NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
studied NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
( NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
adenosine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
140 NN O I-INT
?g?kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
?min NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
end-tidal NN O I-OUT
CO2 NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
putative NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
RIII NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nociceptive NN O I-OUT
flexor NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
biceps NN O I-OUT
femoris NN O I-OUT
electromyogram NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
painful NN O I-OUT
electrical NN O I-OUT
sural NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RIII NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
substitute NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Placebo NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
induce NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Adenosine NN O I-INT
induced NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperpnea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
RIII NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
4th NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
temporal NN O I-OUT
dynamics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adenosine-induced NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RIII NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
differed NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
immediate NN O O
onset NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
slow NN O O
decrease NN O O
for NN O O
dyspnea NN O O
, NN O O
slower NN O O
onset NN O O
for NN O O
RIII NN O O
inhibition NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intravenous NN O I-INT
adenosine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
humans NN O I-PAR
induces NN O I-OUT
counterirritation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fueling NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
notion NN O O
that NN O O
C-fiber NN O O
stimulation NN O O
trigger NN O O
DNICs NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
temporal NN O O
dissociation NN O O
between NN O O
adenosine-induced NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RIII NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
suggests NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
C NN O O
fibers NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
ones NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
involved NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23875574)

Components NN O O
of NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
and NN O O
visual NN O O
selective NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O

Load NN O O
theory NN O O
( NN O O
Lavie NN O O
, NN O O
N. NN O O
, NN O O
Hirst NN O O
, NN O O
A. NN O O
, NN O O
De NN O O
Fockert NN O O
, NN O O
J. NN O O
W. NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
Viding NN O O
, NN O O
E. NN O O
[ NN O O
2004 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Load NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
selective NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Journal NN O O
of NN O O
Experimental NN O O
Psychology NN O O
: NN O O
General NN O O
, NN O O
133 NN O O
, NN O O
339-354 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
proposes NN O O
that NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
is NN O O
imposed NN O O
by NN O O
current NN O O
processing NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
perceptual NN O O
load NN O O
should NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
efficient NN O O
distractor NN O O
rejection NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
load NN O O
( NN O O
dual-task NN O O
coordination NN O O
) NN O O
should NN O O
hinder NN O O
distractor NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Studies NN O O
support NN O O
load NN O O
theory NN O O
's NN O O
prediction NN O O
that NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
load NN O O
will NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
larger NN O O
distractor NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
used NN O O
secondary NN O O
tasks NN O O
that NN O O
required NN O O
only NN O O
verbal NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
executive NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
which NN O O
other NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
components NN O O
( NN O O
visual NN O O
, NN O O
spatial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
phonological NN O O
) NN O O
influence NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
selective NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
attentional NN O I-OUT
capture NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
single-task NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
engaged NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
memory NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
dual-task NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
executive NN O O
, NN O O
visual NN O O
and NN O O
spatial NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
influenced NN O O
selective NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
phonological NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
attentional NN O I-OUT
capture NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
larger NN O O
when NN O O
visual NN O O
or NN O O
spatial NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
was NN O O
loaded NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
phonological NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
load NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
attentional NN O I-OUT
capture NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
load NN O O
theory NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
specific NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
influence NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
selective NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23888359)

Nasal NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
social NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
last NN O O
two NN O O
decades NN O O
have NN O O
witnessed NN O O
a NN O O
surge NN O O
in NN O O
research NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
enhancing NN O O
social NN O O
behaviour NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

Preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
potential NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
5-day NN O O
'live-in NN O O
' NN O O
intervention NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

38 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
youths NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7-16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
administered NN O O
24 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
international NN O I-INT
units NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
depending NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intranasal NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
over NN O O
four NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
during NN O O
parent-child NN O O
interaction NN O O
training NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Parent NN O O
and NN O O
child NN O O
behaviours NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinician NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
observations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
at NN O O
multiple NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
intranasal NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
improve NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
adjustment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
male NN O O
youths NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
nasal NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
circumscribed NN O O
than NN O O
suggested NN O O
by NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
caution NN O O
in NN O O
recommending NN O O
it NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
broadly NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23893098)

Competitive NN O O
employment NN O O
for NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
early NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
most NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
employment NN O O
upon NN O O
graduation NN O O
from NN O O
high NN O O
school NN O O
or NN O O
college NN O O
is NN O O
elusive NN O O
. NN O O

Employment NN O O
rates NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
despite NN O O
many NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O O
special NN O O
education NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
presented NN O O
the NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Project NN O I-INT
SEARCH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ASD NN O I-INT
Supports NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
employment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18-21 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
provides NN O I-OUT
very NN O I-OUT
promising NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
youth NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
much NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
non-traditional NN O I-OUT
jobs NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
minimum NN O I-OUT
wage NN O I-OUT
incomes NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
youth NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Specifically NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
21 NN O I-OUT
out NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
87.5 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
acquired NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
16 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
6.25 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
acquired NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23893101)

A NN O O
replication NN O O
and NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PEERS NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
examining NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
Program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Enrichment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Relational NN O I-INT
Skills NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEERS NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Laugeson NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
J NN O O
Autism NN O O
Dev NN O O
Disord NN O O
39 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
:596-606 NN O O
, NN O O
2009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PEERS NN O I-INT
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
improving NN O O
friendship NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher-functioning NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
11-16 NN O I-PAR
years-old NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
waitlist NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
their NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PEERS NN O I-OUT
concepts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
friendship NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
get-togethers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
pre-to NN O I-OUT
post-PEERS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
independent NN O O
replication NN O O
and NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
empirically-supported NN O O
PEERS NN O I-INT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23952897)

Community-based NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
opioid NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
offenders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
substitution NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
program-based NN O O
OST NN O I-INT
for NN O O
community-supervised NN O I-PAR
offenders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
project NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
to NN O O
specialist NN O O
supervised NN O O
OST NN O O
for NN O O
opioid NN O O
dependent NN O O
offenders NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
substance NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
project NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
jail NN O I-PAR
diversion NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
OST NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
facility NN O I-INT
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
OST NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
facility NN O I-INT
methadone NN O I-INT
OST NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participation NN O O
lasted NN O O
13.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
12-month NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
plus NN O O
a NN O O
post-participation NN O O
visit NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
endorsed NN O O
0 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
14 NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Specialty NN O O
care NN O O
reduced NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Risk NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Battery NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
-.24 NN O O
? NN O O
.17 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
( NN O O
.02 NN O O
? NN O O
.14 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.032 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Findings NN O O
support NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O I-INT
OST NN O I-INT
feasibility NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
community-supervised NN O O
offender NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

Specialist NN O O
care NN O O
may NN O O
facilitate NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SCIENTIFIC NN O I-OUT
SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
Further NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
addicted NN O O
offender NN O O
management NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
matching NN O O
of NN O O
offenders NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
upon NN O O
history NN O O
and NN O O
co-morbidity NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
care NN O O
coordination NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23972722)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
EORTC NN O O
target NN O O
definition NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
dose-intensified NN O O
salvage NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
recurrent NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
assurance NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
SAKK NN O O
09/10 NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Different NN O O
international NN O O
target NN O O
volume NN O O
delineation NN O O
guidelines NN O O
exist NN O O
and NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
techniques NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
salvage NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
RT NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
recurrent NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
less NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
regarding NN O O
their NN O O
respective NN O O
applicability NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
testing NN O O
64 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
salvage NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
intense NN O I-INT
quality NN O I-INT
assurance NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
including NN O O
a NN O O
site-specific NN O O
and NN O O
study-specific NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
dummy NN O I-INT
run NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Target NN O O
volume NN O O
delineation NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
Organisation NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
guidelines NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
DR-based NN O O
treatment NN O O
plan NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
for NN O O
70 NN O O
Gy NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O O
and NN O O
minor NN O O
protocol NN O O
deviations NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
, NN O O
interobserver NN O O
agreement NN O O
of NN O O
delineated NN O O
target NN O O
contours NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
dose-volume NN O O
histogram NN O O
( NN O O
DVH NN O O
) NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
techniques NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
3-dimensional NN O I-INT
conformal NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3D-CRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
remaining NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
intensity NN O I-INT
modulated NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IMRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
volumetric NN O I-INT
modulated NN O I-INT
arc NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VMAT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
first NN O O
submitted NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DR NN O O
contained NN O O
major NN O O
deviations NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
( NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
centers NN O O
, NN O O
mostly NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
inappropriately NN O O
defined NN O O
or NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
bed NN O O
( NN O O
PB NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
but NN O O
5 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
DR NN O I-PAR
successfully NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
their NN O O
second NN O O
submitted NN O O
version NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interobserver NN O O
agreement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PB NN O O
was NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
DR NN O O
review NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
? NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.59 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.55 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.64 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.58 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
agreement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.3 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
union NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
79.3 NN O O
vs NN O O
84.2 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rectal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
DVH NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IMRT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VMAT NN O I-OUT
vs NN O I-OUT
3D-CRT NN O I-OUT
plans NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
interobserver NN O O
agreement NN O O
of NN O O
PB NN O O
delineation NN O O
was NN O O
moderate NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
DR. NN O O
Major NN O O
deviations NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
centers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
DR NN O O
has NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
acquaintance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participating NN O O
centers NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24033239)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
Stepping NN O I-INT
Stones NN O I-INT
Triple NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
mixed-disability NN O I-PAR
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Stepping NN O I-INT
Stones NN O I-INT
Triple NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SSTP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
parenting NN O O
program NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
families NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Group NN O I-INT
Stepping NN O I-INT
Stones NN O I-INT
Triple NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GSSTP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
mixed-disability NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Cerebral NN O I-PAR
Palsy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
parent-reported NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
styles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
conflict NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
among NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
despite NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
differing NN O O
impairments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
GSSTP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
mixed-disability NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Limitations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
areas NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2405223)

[ NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
minoxidil NN O I-INT
liniment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hair NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24076133)

Local NN O I-OUT
contextual NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
major NN O O
depressive NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
contextual NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
utilize NN O O
predictive NN O O
contextual NN O O
information NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
predictable NN O O
versus NN O O
random NN O O
targets NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
We NN O O
recorded NN O O
EEG NN O I-INT
in NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recording NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
targets NN O I-INT
preceded NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
sequences NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
standards NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
sequences NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
standards NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
predictive NN O I-INT
sequence NN O I-INT
signaling NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
occurrence NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
subsequent NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
event NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
MDD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
P3b NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
predicted NN O O
and NN O O
random NN O O
targets NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
measures NN O O
during NN O O
processing NN O O
of NN O O
predicted NN O O
targets NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
attenuation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
P3b NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
sequence NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
target NN O O
N1 NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
attenuated NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
MDD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
utilize NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
context NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
processing NN O O
of NN O O
deterministic NN O O
targets NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
limited NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
by NN O O
context-dependent NN O O
P3b NN O O
deficits NN O O
. NN O O

SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
major NN O O
depression NN O O
have NN O O
altered NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
contextual NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24097277)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
transurethral NN O I-INT
GreenLight NN O I-INT
photoselective NN O I-INT
vaporization NN O I-INT
of NN O O
bladder NN O O
tumor NN O O
and NN O O
prostate NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
simultaneous NN O I-OUT
transurethral NN O I-OUT
GreenLight NN O I-OUT
photoselective NN O I-OUT
vaporization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
bladder NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
PVBT/PVP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
outlet NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
caused NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
prospective NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
transurethral NN O I-INT
PVBT/PVP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
PVBT NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinicopathological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
neck/prostatic NN O I-OUT
fossa NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clinicopathological NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
neck/prostatic NN O I-OUT
fossa NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
16.0 NN O O
, NN O O
4.0 NN O O
and NN O O
4.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
resection NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18.9 NN O O
, NN O O
5.4 NN O O
and NN O O
8.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
PVBT NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Simultaneous NN O O
PVBT/PVP NN O I-INT
may NN O O
help NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
neck/prostatic NN O I-OUT
fossa NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PVBT/PVP NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
effectively NN O O
and NN O O
safely NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24101016)

Immunological NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
esophageal NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
substudy NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
esophagectomy NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
open NN O O
surgical NN O O
technique NN O O
( NN O O
OE NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
by NN O O
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
laparotomy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
esophagectomy NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MIE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
thoracoscopy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
additional NN O O
analysis NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
immunological NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
OE NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
MIE NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
immunological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HLA-DR NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
monocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
acute-phase NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
means NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O O
, NN O O
96 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
168 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MIE NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
168 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
HLA-DR NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
levels NN O O
upon NN O O
operation NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
substudy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
and NN O O
conventional NN O O
open NN O O
esophagectomies NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
preserved NN O O
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MIE NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
findings NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MIE NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
168 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
imply NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
better NN O O
preserved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MIE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
less NN O O
surgical NN O O
trauma NN O O
could NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
preserved NN O O
acute-phase NN O O
and NN O O
stress NN O O
responses NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
clinical NN O O
manifestations NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24104513)

See NN O O
what NN O O
I NN O O
see NN O O
, NN O O
do NN O O
as NN O O
I NN O O
do NN O O
: NN O O
promoting NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
imitation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Since NN O O
imitation NN O O
and NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
are NN O O
both NN O O
important NN O O
abilities NN O O
for NN O O
young NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
since NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
domains NN O O
, NN O O
imitation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
are NN O O
important NN O O
targets NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
promoting NN O O
imitation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
specifically NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
low-intensity NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
non-residential NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
receiving NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
programme NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
on NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
usual NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
obtained NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
post-test NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pre-test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
programme NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
concerning NN O O
imitation NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
modest NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Future NN O O
replications NN O O
should NN O O
involve NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
stability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
generalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24146455)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
Cappra? NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Erectile NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
( NN O O
ED NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
health NN O O
concerns NN O O
affects NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ED NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
drugs NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
certain NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O

Alternative NN O O
medicine NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ED NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O I-INT
Cappra NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
herbal NN O O
medicine NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
Thailand NN O O
for NN O O
decades NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
Cappra NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Erectile NN O I-OUT
Function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IIEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sixty NN O I-OUT
one NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
IIEF NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
domains NN O O
in NN O O
Cappra NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IIEF NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
erectile NN O O
function NN O O
domain NN O O
of NN O O
Cappra NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
4.87 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.44 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.032 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
13.3 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
Cappra NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
placebo NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
face NN O I-OUT
numbness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1.6 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
Cappra NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1.6 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
Cappra NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
Cappra NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
alternative NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
ED NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24161568)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
hypofractionation NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
fractionation NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
T1-2 NN O I-PAR
glottic NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Korean NN O O
Radiation NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
KROG-0201 NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
prospectively NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
radiotherapy NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
glottic NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T1-2 NN O I-PAR
glottic NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
282 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
closed NN O I-PAR
prematurely NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
accrual NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
156 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
82 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
fractionation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CONV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
66 NN O I-INT
Gy/33 NN O I-INT
fractions NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
T1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
Gy/35 NN O I-INT
fractions NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
T2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
74 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
hypofractionation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HYPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
63 NN O I-INT
Gy/28 NN O I-INT
fractions NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
T1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
67.5 NN O I-INT
Gy/30 NN O I-INT
fractions NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
T2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LPFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
With NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
67 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
2-122 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
LPFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
77.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CONV NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
88.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
HYPO NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.55 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.213 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
for NN O O
T1a NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
LPFS NN O I-OUT
trended NN O O
positively NN O O
in NN O O
HYPO NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
76.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
93.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
HR NN O O
3.65 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.056 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Given NN O O
that NN O O
HYPO NN O O
is NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
not NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
CONV NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
toxicity NN O O
profile NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
hypofractionation NN O O
scheme NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
offered NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T1-2 NN O I-PAR
glottic NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
potential NN O O
advantages NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
shortened NN O O
overall NN O O
treatment NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24164087)

Therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Pulmicort? NN O I-INT
Turbuhaler NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
one-lung NN O O
ventilation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
on NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
one-lung NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
lobectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
pre-operative NN O O
nebulised NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Bronchoalveolar NN O O
lavage NN O O
fluid NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
collapsed NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
ventilated NN O O
lung NN O O
both NN O O
before NN O O
one-lung NN O O
ventilation NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
re-expansion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lung NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bronchoalveolar NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Budesonide NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
saline NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
3.7 NN O O
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
2.5 NN O O
( NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
kPa NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
plateau NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
3.1 NN O O
( NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
2.2 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
kPa NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirty NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
re-expansion NN O O
, NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
saline NN O O
( NN O O
57.5 NN O O
( NN O O
4.1 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
40.1 NN O O
( NN O O
3.5 NN O O
) NN O O
ml.cmH NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
O NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Budesonide NN O I-INT
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interleukin-1? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bronchoalveolar NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
interleukin-10 NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
min NN O O
after NN O O
re-expansion NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pre-operative NN O O
nebulisation NN O O
of NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
mechanics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
one-lung NN O O
ventilation NN O O
during NN O O
thoracic NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24195864)

Iron NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
energetic NN O O
efficiency NN O O
in NN O O
iron-depleted NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
rowers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Studies NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
animals NN O O
and NN O O
humans NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
iron NN O O
depletion NN O O
without NN O O
anemia NN O O
( NN O O
IDNA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
sedentary NN O O
counterparts NN O O
, NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
endurance NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
greater NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
IDNA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
consequences NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
endurance NN O O
athletes NN O O
include NN O O
reduced NN O O
work NN O O
capacity NN O O
and NN O O
energetic NN O O
efficiency NN O O
( NN O O
EF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Fe NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Fe NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
nonanemic NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
rowers NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
training NN O O
season NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
rowers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
100 NN O I-INT
mg?d NN O I-INT
FeSO4 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
19 NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-one NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O I-INT
Fe NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
completed NN O O
the NN O O
6-wk NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Fe NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4-km NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
trial NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
V?O2peak NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
energetic NN O I-OUT
EF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Rowers NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
fat-free NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
V?O2peak NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
revealed NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
Fe NN O I-OUT
stores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
Fe NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
Fe NN O O
stores NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rowers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Fe NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
slower NN O O
lactate NN O O
response NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
recovery NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
group-by NN O O
time NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
energetic NN O I-OUT
EF NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
for NN O O
group-by NN O O
time NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-PAR
Female NN O I-PAR
rowers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depleted NN O I-PAR
Fe NN O I-PAR
stores NN O O
who NN O O
consumed NN O O
supplemental NN O O
Fe NN O O
during NN O O
training NN O O
improved NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
Fe NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
energetic NN O I-OUT
EF NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
endurance NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
endurance NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
dietary NN O O
patterns NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
training NN O O
increase NN O O
their NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
IDNA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
Fe NN O O
supplementation NN O O
may NN O O
maximize NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24200220)

Evaluating NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
stereotactic NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
chest NN O O
wall NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Stereotactic NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SBRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
can NN O O
produce NN O O
excellent NN O O
local NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
solid NN O O
tumor NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
toxicity NN O O
to NN O O
nearby NN O O
critical NN O O
structures NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
concern NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
previously NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
SBRT NN O I-INT
for NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
chest NN O O
wall NN O O
( NN O O
CW NN O O
) NN O O
volume NN O O
receiving NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
40Gy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
V20 NN O O
, NN O O
V30 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
V40 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
linked NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
we NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
dosimetric NN O O
advantages NN O O
of NN O O
protons NN O O
could NN O O
produce NN O O
lower NN O O
CW NN O O
doses NN O O
than NN O O
traditional NN O O
photon-based NN O I-INT
SBRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
searched NN O O
an NN O O
institutional NN O O
database NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
photon NN O I-INT
SBRT NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
2.5cm NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CW NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
found NN O O
260 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
CW NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
then NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
representative NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
generated NN O I-INT
proton NN O I-INT
SBRT NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
plans NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
the NN O O
identical NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
50Gy NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
fractions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
assessed NN O O
potential NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
CW NN O O
dose NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
plans NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
proton NN O I-OUT
SBRT NN O I-OUT
plans NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CW NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
dose NN O O
levels NN O O
measured NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
CW NN O I-OUT
V20 NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
364.0cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
160.0cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
V30 NN O O
was NN O O
144.6cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
77.0cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0012 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
V35 NN O O
was NN O O
93.9cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
57.9cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
V40 NN O O
was NN O O
66.5cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
45.4cm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0112 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
lung NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
5.9Gy NN O O
vs NN O O
3.8Gy NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
photons NN O O
and NN O O
protons NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Coverage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
planning NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PTV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
plans NN O O
( NN O O
96.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
photons NN O O
and NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
protons NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
a NN O O
dosimetric NN O O
standpoint NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
proton NN O I-INT
SBRT NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
achieve NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
coverage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
PTV NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CW NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
photon NN O I-OUT
SBRT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
therefore NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
lesions NN O I-OUT
closer NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
critical NN O O
structures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24201232)

Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
amantadine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
to12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Fourth NN O I-PAR
Edition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Text NN O I-PAR
Revision NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
amantadine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O O
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
between NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2.0 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
100 NN O O
or NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
30 NN O O
kg NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
30 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavioral NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
checklist NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
impression-improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at2 NN O O
checkpoints NN O O
of NN O O
5-week NN O O
intervals NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Informed NN O O
consentwas NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amantadine NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
show NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24225126)

Etomidate NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
flumazenil NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
transplantation NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
etomidate NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
flumazenil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
intrathecal NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cells NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
puncture NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2-12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
puncture NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O I-INT
flumazenil NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
F NN O O
, NN O O
n=20 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-INT
etomidate NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
E NN O O
, NN O O
n=20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
of NN O O
etomidate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
inadequate NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
repeated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
of NN O O
etomidate NN O I-INT
until NN O O
reaching NN O O
deep NN O O
sedation NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
F NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
flumazenil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.01 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
E NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Ramsay NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
continuously NN O O
monitored NN O O
and NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
changed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Five NN O O
patients NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Myoclonus NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
F NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
flumazenil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
RSS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
F NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
E. NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Physician NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Etomidate NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
stable NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
relatively NN O O
less NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
flumazenil NN O I-INT
antagonized NN O O
the NN O O
anesthetic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
etomidate NN O O
; NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
etomidate NN O O
with NN O O
flumazenil NN O O
is NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
performing NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
transplantation NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24266855)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
in NN O O
de NN O O
novo NN O O
renal NN O O
allograft NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
sirolimus NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
corticosteroids NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
sirolimus NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
12-month NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
420 NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
novo NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
allograft NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
month NN O O
post-transplantation NN O O
, NN O O
357 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
standard-dose NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sCsA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
179 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
reduced-dose NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rCsA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
178 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
sirolimus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
biopsy-confirmed NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BCAR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Baseline NN O O
demographic NN O O
and NN O O
donor NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

BCAR NN O I-OUT
rates NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
: NN O O
11.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
rCsA NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
16.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
sCsA NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
?SEM NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
1.75 NN O O
? NN O O
0.10 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.97 NN O O
? NN O O
0.07 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
?SEM NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
Nankivell NN O O
method NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
57.8 NN O O
? NN O O
1.78 NN O O
vs. NN O O
49.5 NN O O
? NN O O
2.46 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
rCsA NN O O
versus NN O O
sCsA NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
exceeded NN O I-OUT
98 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
malignancy NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rCsA NN O O
with NN O O
sirolimus NN O O
and NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
regimen NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
excellent NN O I-OUT
12-month NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BCAR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
allograft NN O O
recipients NN O O
. NN O O

Sirolimus NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
rCsA NN O O
and NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
provided NN O O
adequate NN O I-OUT
immunosuppression NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cyclosporine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O I-OUT
findings NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
long-term NN O O
renal NN O O
allograft NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24275895)

Neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
depression NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
authors NN O O
describe NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
participation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
NIH-sponsored NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
modest NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
10-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
greater NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
other NN O O
known NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
PD NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
disease NN O O
severity NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
education NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
depression NN O O
improvement NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24291456)

Exercise NN O I-INT
for NN O O
methamphetamine NN O I-INT
dependence NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
rationale NN O O
, NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
methodology NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Effective NN O O
pharmacotherapies NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
methamphetamine NN O O
( NN O O
MA NN O O
) NN O O
dependence NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
identified NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
therapies NN O O
are NN O O
marginally NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
behavioral NN O O
studies NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
for NN O O
improving NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
described NN O O
here NN O O
is NN O O
examining NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
MA-dependent NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
randomizing NN O O
150 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MA NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
residential NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
facility NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
addictive NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
thrice-weekly NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recruitment NN O O
commenced NN O O
in NN O O
March NN O O
, NN O O
2010 NN O O
. NN O O

Enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
phases NN O O
are NN O O
ongoing NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
recruitment NN O O
is NN O O
exceeding NN O O
targeted NN O O
enrollment NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Seeking NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
possibly NN O O
effective NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
traditional NN O O
behavioral NN O O
approaches NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
MA NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
protocol NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
MA NN O I-OUT
use NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
residential-based NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
also NN O O
is NN O O
evaluating NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24323035)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
sunitinib NN O O
plus NN O O
prednisone NN O O
versus NN O O
prednisone NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
progressive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
castration-resistant NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
angiogenesis-targeted NN O I-OUT
sunitinib NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
castration-resistant NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mCRPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
mCRPC NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
docetaxel-based NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
2:1 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
sunitinib NN O I-INT
37.5 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
continuously NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Two NN O O
interim NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
planned NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
873 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
sunitinib NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
584 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
289 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
independent NN O O
data NN O O
monitoring NN O O
committee NN O O
stopped NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
futility NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
overall NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
8.7 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.1 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
11.8 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
sunitinib NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.914 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.762 NN O O
to NN O O
1.097 NN O O
; NN O O
stratified NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.168 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sunitinib NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
5.6 NN O O
v NN O O
4.1 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.725 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.591 NN O O
to NN O O
0.890 NN O O
; NN O O
stratified NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
discontinuations NN O I-OUT
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AEs NN O O
; NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
sunitinib NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
AEs NN O O
were NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
asthenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hand-foot NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Frequent NN O O
treatment-emergent NN O O
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
hematologic NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lymphopenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
anemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
sunitinib NN O O
to NN O O
prednisone NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
docetaxel-refractory NN O O
mCRPC NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
antiangiogenic NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
mCRPC NN O O
remains NN O O
investigational NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24325899)

Randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
THUNDERBEAT NN O O
technology NN O O
vs NN O O
standard NN O O
electrosurgery NN O O
during NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
lymphadenectomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
operative NN O O
time NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
THUNDERBEAT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TB NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
electrosurgery NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SES NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
radical NN O O
hysterectomy NN O O
and NN O O
pelvic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Evidence NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
properly NN O O
designed NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
Canadian NN O O
Task NN O O
Force NN O O
classification NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Gynecologic NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Catholic NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Sacred NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Rome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Italy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FIGO NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
IA2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IB1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IIA NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FIGO NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
IB2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IIA NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
2cm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IIB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
partial NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
endometrioid NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FIGO NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
IB NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
TB NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
SES NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
easily NN O O
reproducible NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
TB NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
SES NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
85 NN O O
minutes NN O O
for NN O O
TB NN O O
vs NN O O
115 NN O O
minutes NN O O
for NN O O
SES NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
TB NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
TB NN O O
reported NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
both NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
Valsalva NN O O
maneuver NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
additional NN O O
analgesic NN O O
therapy NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
SES NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
TB NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
technique NN O O
( NN O O
SES NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24330473)

Short- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tactile NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
on NN O O
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Parkinson NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
PD NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
chronic NN O O
neurodegenerative NN O O
disorder NN O O
with NN O O
limited NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
non-pharmacological NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
axis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
analyse NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
diurnal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
tactile NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
Controlled NN O O
and NN O O
Randomised NN O O
Multicentre NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
AND NN O O
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
50-79 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
blindly NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
tactile NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ten NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
during NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
. NN O O

Salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
am NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
pm NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
pm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
am NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
five NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
eighth NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compare NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interventional NN O I-OUT
time-point NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
levodopa NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
16.0 NN O O
, NN O O
5.8 NN O O
, NN O O
2.8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
14.0 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
later NN O O
reproduced NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
TM NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
diurnal NN O O
salivary NN O O
cortisol NN O O
pattern NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O O
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
in NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
TM NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time-point NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
anti-parkinson NN O I-OUT
pharmacy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sampling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
levodopa NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Diurnal NN O I-OUT
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O

Salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
TM NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
RTM NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
sustained NN O O
long-term NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
associations NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
and/or NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrial.gov NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01734876 NN O O
and NN O O
FoU NN O O
Sweden NN O O
108881 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24345974)

Does NN O O
an NN O O
in-season NN O I-INT
detraining NN O I-INT
period NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
shoulder NN O O
rotator NN O O
cuff NN O O
strength NN O O
and NN O O
balance NN O O
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
swimmers NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
Imbalance NN O O
in NN O O
shoulder NN O O
rotator NN O O
muscles NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
well-documented NN O O
problem NN O O
in NN O O
swimmers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
implement NN O O
land-based NN O O
strength NN O O
training NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O

Meanwhile NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
detraining NN O O
period NN O O
on NN O O
swimmers NN O O
' NN O O
shoulder NN O O
rotator NN O O
muscles NN O O
are NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
detraining NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
strength NN O O
and NN O O
balance NN O O
of NN O O
shoulder NN O O
rotator NN O O
cuff NN O O
muscles NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
swimmers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
continuity NN O O
of NN O O
usual NN O O
water NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
swimmers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
height NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
maturational NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
torques NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
internal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
external NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ER NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rotators NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
during NN O O
preseason NN O O
, NN O O
midseason NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
postseason NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
detraining NN O I-INT
period NN O O
from NN O O
16 NN O O
to NN O O
32 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Concentric NN O O
action NN O O
at NN O O
60??s-1 NN O O
and NN O O
180??s-1 NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
isokinetic NN O O
dynamometer NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ER/IR NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
60??s-1 NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
increments NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
IR NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ER/IR NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
shoulders NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trend NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
competitive NN O O
season NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tendency NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
at NN O O
180??s-1 NN O O
because NN O O
training NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
primarily NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
IR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ER/IR NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
land-based NN O O
strength NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
16 NN O O
to NN O O
32 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ER/IR NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
shoulders NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
young NN O O
swimmers NN O O
' NN O O
coaches NN O O
should NN O O
use NN O I-INT
dry-land NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
it NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O O
basis NN O O
( NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
season NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24406481)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
paradoxical NN O O
outcome NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
Sibutramine NN O O
Cardiovascular NN O O
OUTcomes NN O O
( NN O O
SCOUT NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-INT
sibutramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
early NN O O
changes NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
increases NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
subsequent NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SUBJECTS/METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
9804 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
27-45 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
subanalysis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
SCOUT NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dyslipidemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
assess NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analyses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
categories NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
performed NN O O
overall NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
6-week NN O I-INT
sibutramine NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
sibutramine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
POE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
resuscitated NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
arrest NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Time-to-event NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
POE NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
with NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
subgroups NN O O
and NN O O
interactions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
6-week NN O I-INT
sibutramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
period NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
progressively NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hypertensive NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
-8.1?10.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
with NN O O
< NN O O
5 NN O O
kg NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
to NN O O
-10.8?11.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
with NN O O
?5 NN O O
kg NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
highest NN O I-OUT
POE NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
mainly NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
sibutramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
markedly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
tended NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
POEs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
Modest NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
modest NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
expected NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
harmful NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
diseased NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24433230)

Goodstart NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
integrated NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
community-based NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
maternal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
newborn NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mother-to-child NN O I-INT
transmission NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
township NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Progress NN O O
towards NN O O
MDG4 NN O O
for NN O O
child NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
South NN O O
Africa NN O O
requires NN O O
effective NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
mother-to-child NN O O
transmission NN O O
( NN O O
PMTCT NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
HIV NN O O
including NN O O
increasing NN O O
exclusive NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
reducing NN O O
neonatal NN O O
deaths NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
necessitates NN O O
increased NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
post-natal NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
developing NN O O
and NN O O
scaling NN O O
up NN O O
appropriate NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
community-based NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
the NN O O
peri-urban NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
clusters NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
evaluate NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
integrated NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
scalable NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
providing NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
pregnancy NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
five NN O I-INT
post-natal NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
workers NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Umlazi NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Durban NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Africa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
exclusive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
appropriate NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
feeding NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
post-natally NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HIV-free NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
infant NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
almost NN O O
doubling NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exclusive NN O I-OUT
breastfeeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.92 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.59-2.33 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
infant NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
length-for-age NN O I-OUT
z-scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
weight NN O O
difference NN O O
0.09 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.00-0.18 NN O O
, NN O O
length NN O O
difference NN O O
0.11 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.03-0.19 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.10 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.04-1.18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
coincided NN O O
with NN O O
national NN O O
scale NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
ARVs NN O O
for NN O O
PMTCT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
diluted NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
HIV-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pro-poor NN O O
integrated NN O O
PMTCT NN O O
and NN O O
maternal NN O O
, NN O O
neonatal NN O O
and NN O O
child NN O O
health NN O O
home NN O O
visiting NN O O
model NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
could NN O O
inform NN O O
national NN O O
primary NN O O
healthcare NN O O
reengineering NN O O
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
exclusive NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
is NN O O
notable NN O O
as NN O O
improving NN O O
exclusive NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
targeting NN O O
urban NN O O
poor NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24502859)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
maintenance NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
irritability NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
relapse NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
This NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
relapse-prevention NN O O
trial NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Fourth NN O I-PAR
Edition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Text NN O I-PAR
Revision NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DMS-IV-TR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ie NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
flexibly NN O O
dosed NN O O
( NN O O
2-15 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
13-26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
decrease NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-PAR
rating NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
much NN O I-PAR
improved NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
much NN O I-PAR
improved NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O I-INT
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
switch NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
until NN O O
relapse NN O O
or NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
time NN O O
from NN O O
randomization NN O O
to NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Eighty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.097 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Kaplan-Meier NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
week NN O O
16 NN O O
were NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
and NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
0.57 NN O O
; NN O O
number NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
[ NN O O
NNT NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
25.2 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
14.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
10.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
2.3 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O I-INT
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
HR NN O O
and NN O O
NNT NN O O
suggest NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
maintenance NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
periodically NN O O
reassessed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
continued NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01227668 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24518002)

Participant NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
processes NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
television NN O I-OUT
viewing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
High NN O O
Five NN O O
for NN O O
Kids NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
High NN O I-INT
Five NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Kids NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
on NN O O
television NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
examine NN O O
participant NN O O
characteristics NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
process NN O O
measures NN O O
and NN O O
assess NN O O
perceived NN O O
helpfulness NN O O
of NN O O
television NN O O
intervention NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
High NN O I-PAR
Five NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
445 NN O I-PAR
overweight/obese NN O I-PAR
2-7 NN O I-PAR
year-olds NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Massachusetts NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
2006-2008 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-INT
television NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
0.36 NN O I-INT
h/day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1-year NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
television NN O O
viewing NN O O
, NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
subgroup NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=253 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
helpfulness NN O O
with NN O O
television NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
using NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
and NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
participant NN O O
characteristics NN O O
with NN O O
processes NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
television NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
choosing NN O O
television NN O O
and NN O O
completing NN O O
intervention NN O O
visits NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
using NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
High NN O O
Five NN O O
reduced NN O O
television NN O O
across NN O O
subgroups NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Latino NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
lower NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
completing NN O I-OUT
?2 NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Odds NN O O
Ratio NN O O
: NN O O
0.39 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
Confidence NN O O
Interval NN O O
: NN O O
0.18 NN O O
, NN O O
0.84 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
higher NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
choosing NN O I-OUT
television NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Odds NN O O
Ratio NN O O
: NN O O
2.23 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
Confidence NN O O
Interval NN O O
: NN O O
1.08 NN O O
, NN O O
4.59 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
did NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
watching NN O I-PAR
?2 NN O I-PAR
h/day NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Greater NN O I-PAR
perceived NN O I-OUT
helpfulness NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
television NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Clinic-based NN O I-INT
motivational NN O I-INT
interviewing NN O I-INT
reduces NN O I-OUT
television NN O I-OUT
viewing NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Low NN O I-INT
cost NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
approaches NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
e.g. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
printed NN O O
materials NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
well-received NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
obesity NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
be NN O O
more NN O O
motivated NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
television NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24526141)

Non-contrast-enhanced NN O I-INT
4D NN O I-INT
MR NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
with NN O O
STAR NN O O
spin NN O O
labeling NN O O
and NN O O
variable NN O O
flip NN O O
angle NN O O
sampling NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
Dural NN O I-PAR
Arteriovenous NN O I-PAR
Fistula NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
non-contrast-enhanced NN O O
4D NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
angiography NN O O
( NN O O
NCE NN O O
4D NN O O
MRA NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
signal NN O O
targeting NN O O
with NN O O
alternative NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
( NN O O
STAR NN O O
) NN O O
spin NN O O
labeling NN O O
and NN O O
variable NN O O
flip NN O O
angle NN O O
( NN O O
VFA NN O O
) NN O O
sampling NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
dural NN O I-PAR
arteriovenous NN O I-PAR
fistula NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DAVF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
transverse NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
NCE NN O I-INT
4D NN O I-INT
MRA NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
DAVF NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
transverse NN O O
sinus NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
T. NN O O
One NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
twice NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
once NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
interventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
digital NN O I-INT
subtraction NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
DSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-INT
contrast-enhanced NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CEMRA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
acquisition NN O O
of NN O O
NCE NN O O
4D NN O O
MRA NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
STAR NN O O
spin NN O O
tagging NN O O
method NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
VFA NN O O
sampling NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
readout NN O O
module NN O O
instead NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
flip NN O O
angle NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
readers NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
NCE NN O O
4D NN O O
MRA NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
DAVF NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
type NN O O
with NN O O
consensus NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
from NN O O
DSA NN O O
and/or NN O O
CEMRA NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
underwent NN O I-OUT
NCE NN O I-INT
4D NN O I-INT
MRA NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
difficulty NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
patent NN O I-PAR
DAVFs NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O O
cases NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
visualization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
transverse NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-INT
NCE NN O I-INT
4D NN O I-INT
MRA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Except NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
DAVF NN O O
of NN O I-INT
NCE NN O I-INT
4D NN O I-INT
MRA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
agreed NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
reference NN O O
standard NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Cortical NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
cases NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CVR NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
NCE NN O O
4D NN O O
MRA NN O O
with NN O O
STAR NN O O
tagging NN O O
and NN O O
VFA NN O O
sampling NN O O
is NN O O
technically NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
DAVF NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
transverse NN O O
sinus NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
technical NN O O
developments NN O O
should NN O O
aim NN O O
at NN O O
improvements NN O O
of NN O O
spatial NN O O
and NN O O
temporal NN O O
coverage NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24554519)

Psychological NN O O
functioning NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
intervention NN O O
using NN O O
micronutrients NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
Christchurch NN O I-PAR
earthquakes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
micronutrients NN O I-INT
given NN O O
acutely NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
Christchurch NN O I-PAR
earthquakes NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
confer NN O O
benefit NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-four NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
original NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
heightened NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
2-3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
22nd NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
earthquake NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
micronutrients NN O I-INT
completed NN O I-PAR
on-line NN O I-PAR
questionnaires NN O I-PAR
assessing NN O I-PAR
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
post-traumatic NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
completing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
nonrandomized NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
questionnaires NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
experienced NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
end-of-trial NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O O
participants NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
most NN O O
measures NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
ES=0.69-1.31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
who NN O O
stayed NN O O
on NN O O
micronutrients NN O O
through NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
or NN O O
stopped NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
reported NN O O
better NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
treatments NN O O
including NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

About NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
post-traumatic NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Disaster NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
improve NN O O
psychologically NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
receiving NN O O
intervention NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
taking NN O O
micronutrients NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
disaster NN O O
show NN O O
better NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
identifying NN O O
micronutrients NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
viable NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
a NN O O
natural NN O O
disaster NN O O
with NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
benefits NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

ACTRN NN O O
12611000460909 NN O O


-DOCSTART- (2461017)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O O
( NN O O
Logiparin NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
dextran NN O O
as NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
factor NN O O
XaI NN O O
and NN O O
IIaI NN O O
activity NN O O
an NN O O
enzymatically NN O I-INT
depolymerized NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
molecular NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LMW-heparin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Logiparin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
s.c. NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
XaI NN O O
mu/kg NN O O
b.w NN O O
. NN O O

once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
THR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
XaI NN O O
activity NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.24 NN O O
XaI NN O O
units/ml NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
IIaI NN O O
activity NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.043 NN O O
IIaI NN O O
mu/ml NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
accumulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
activities NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
phlebographically NN O I-OUT
verified NN O I-OUT
thrombi NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
any NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
registered NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
given NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
Logiparin NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
bleeding NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
main NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
thromboprophylactic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
LMW-heparin NN O O
( NN O O
Logiparin NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
XaI NN O O
mu/kg NN O O
b.w NN O O
. NN O O

once NN O O
daily NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
dextran NN O O
70 NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
THR NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
over-all NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
LMW-heparin NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
dextran NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
non-significant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Peroperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
investigated NN O O
LMW-heparin NN O O
( NN O O
Logiparin NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
postoperative NN O O
thromboembolism NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
can NN O O
probably NN O O
be NN O O
optimized NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24626433)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
lowering NN O O
LDL NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
on NN O O
vascular NN O O
access NN O O
patency NN O O
: NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Heart NN O O
and NN O O
Renal NN O O
Protection NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Reducing NN O O
LDL NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
( NN O O
LDL-C NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
statin-based NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
events NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
lowering NN O O
LDL-C NN O O
on NN O O
vascular NN O O
access NN O O
patency NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
The NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Heart NN O O
and NN O O
Renal NN O O
Protection NN O O
( NN O O
SHARP NN O O
) NN O O
randomized NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
ezetimibe NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
vascular NN O O
access NN O O
occlusive NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
any NN O I-OUT
access NN O I-OUT
revision NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
access NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
old NN O I-OUT
dialysis NN O I-OUT
access NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
permanent NN O I-OUT
dialysis NN O I-OUT
access NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
2353 NN O I-PAR
SHARP NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
access NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
allocation NN O O
to NN O O
simvastatin NN O O
plus NN O O
ezetimibe NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
proportional NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
access NN O I-OUT
occlusive NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
355 NN O O
[ NN O O
29.7 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
simvastatin/ezetimibe NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
388 NN O O
[ NN O O
33.5 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
RR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.87 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.75 NN O O
to NN O O
1.00 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
differed NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
separate NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
raised NN O O
by NN O O
SHARP NN O O
, NN O O
comparable NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
AURORA NN O O
( NN O O
A NN O O
Study NN O O
to NN O O
Evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
Rosuvastatin NN O O
in NN O O
Subjects NN O O
on NN O O
Regular NN O O
Hemodialysis NN O O
: NN O O
An NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
Survival NN O O
and NN O O
Cardiovascular NN O O
Events NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
cohort NN O O
. NN O O

AURORA NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
independent NN O O
confirmation NN O O
( NN O O
vascular NN O O
access NN O O
occlusive NN O O
events NN O O
: NN O O
352 NN O O
[ NN O O
28.9 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O O
versus NN O O
337 NN O O
[ NN O O
27.6 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
RR NN O O
, NN O O
1.06 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.91 NN O O
to NN O O
1.23 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.44 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
combining NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
statin-based NN O O
regimen NN O O
on NN O O
vascular NN O O
access NN O O
occlusive NN O O
events NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
707 NN O O
[ NN O O
29.3 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
LDL-C-lowering NN O O
therapy NN O O
versus NN O O
725 NN O O
[ NN O O
30.5 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
RR NN O O
, NN O O
0.95 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.85 NN O O
to NN O O
1.05 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Exploratory NN O O
analyses NN O O
from NN O O
SHARP NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
lowering NN O O
LDL-C NN O O
with NN O O
statin-based NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
improve NN O O
vascular NN O O
access NN O O
patency NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
AURORA NN O O
. NN O O

Taken NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
available NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
any NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
lowering NN O O
LDL-C NN O O
on NN O O
vascular NN O O
access NN O O
patency NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
modest NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24637941)

Sorafenib NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
escalation NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
uniformly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
elevations NN O O
in NN O O
normotensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hypertension NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
vascular NN O I-INT
endothelial NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VEGF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
receptor NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
superior NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
increased NN O O
sorafenib NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
cause NN O O
incremental NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O O
12-h NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
BP NN O O
in NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
dose NN O O
escalation NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
t.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
had NN O O
marginally NN O O
significant NN O O
further NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
12-h NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.053 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
achieve NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O O
varied NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sorafenib NN O I-OUT
dose NN O O
escalation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
steady-state NN O O
plasma NN O O
sorafenib NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suggest NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
complex NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
biomarker NN O O
of NN O O
VEGF NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
have NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
sorafenib NN O O
's NN O O
BP-elevating NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24675714)

Weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
with NN O O
high NN O O
or NN O O
low NN O O
protein NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
glycemic NN O O
index NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
DIOGENES NN O O
trial NN O O
12-month NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
content NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
glycemic NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
( NN O O
LGI NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
weight NN O O
management NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
long-term NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
scarce NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
DIOGENES NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
P NN O O
and NN O O
GI NN O O
on NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
across NN O I-PAR
Europe NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
centers NN O O
that NN O O
extended NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
After NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
low-calorie NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
LCD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
256 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
five NN O I-INT
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
P/LGI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HP/LGI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
HP/high NN O I-INT
GI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HP/HGI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
P/LGI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LP/LGI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
LP/HGI NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O I-INT
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
foods NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
free NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
shop NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
12-month NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dietician NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O I-INT
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
LCD NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
lost NN O O
11.2 NN O O
( NN O O
10.8 NN O O
, NN O O
12.0 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Average NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
regain NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
3.9 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3.0-4.8 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
HP NN O O
diets NN O O
regained NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
LP NN O O
diets NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
regain NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
year NN O O
was NN O O
2.0 NN O O
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
, NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
completers NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
N=139 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
2.8 NN O O
( NN O O
1.4 NN O O
, NN O O
4.1 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
N=256 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
consistent NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
GI NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
regain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cardiometabolic NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
among NN O O
diet NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
higher NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
content NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
improves NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24676906)

Decreased NN O O
glutathione NN O O
and NN O O
elevated NN O O
hair NN O O
mercury NN O O
levels NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
nutritional NN O I-PAR
deficiency-based NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Oman NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Genetic NN O O
, NN O O
nutrition NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
environmental NN O O
factors NN O O
have NN O O
each NN O O
been NN O O
implicated NN O O
as NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
low NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-INT
glutathione NN O I-INT
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
numerous NN O O
autism NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
disrupt NN O O
methylation-dependent NN O O
epigenetic NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
with NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
consequences NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
redox NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methylation NN O I-INT
metabolites NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
homocysteinylation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hair NN O I-INT
mercury NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neurotypical NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
Omani NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
shown NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
exhibit NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
nutritional NN O I-PAR
deficiencies NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
folate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-INT
B?? NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
below NN O O
control NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
S-adenosylhomocysteine NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O O
, NN O O
indicative NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
methionine NN O I-OUT
synthase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Autistic NN O I-OUT
males NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-OUT
homocysteinylation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
males NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
females NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mercury NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
markedly NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hair NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
consistent NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
glutathione NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
elimination NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Oman NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
resources NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
methylation NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O I-INT
hair NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mercury NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24679062)

Aspirin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
substantial NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
perioperative NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
both NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
aspirin NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Using NN O O
a NN O O
2-by-2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
10,010 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
preparing NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
here NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
taking NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
before NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
initiation NN O O
stratum NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
5628 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
already NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
( NN O O
continuation NN O O
stratum NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
4382 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
started NN O O
taking NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
just NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
continued NN O O
it NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
initiation NN O O
stratum NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
continuation NN O O
stratum NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
resumed NN O O
their NN O O
regular NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
351 NN O O
of NN O O
4998 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
7.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
355 NN O O
of NN O O
5012 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aspirin NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.99 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.86 NN O O
to NN O O
1.15 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.92 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aspirin NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
230 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
188 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
3.8 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.23 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.01 NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
1.49 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
strata NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
period NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Funded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Canadian NN O O
Institutes NN O O
of NN O O
Health NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
others NN O O
; NN O O
POISE-2 NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01082874 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24708422)

An NN O O
RCT NN O O
comparing NN O O
patient-centred NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
of NN O O
guided NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
mucosa NN O I-INT
supported NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
implant NN O O
placement NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
patient-centred NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
guided NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
systems NN O O
( NN O I-INT
mucosa NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
supported NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
fully NN O I-PAR
edentulous NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
jaws NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
edentulous NN O I-PAR
maxillas NN O I-PAR
and/ NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
mandibles NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
consecutively NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Dutch NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
McGill NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MPQ-DLV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
instrument NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Three NN O O
hundred NN O O
and NN O O
fourteen NN O O
implants NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
successfully NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
shown NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MPQ-DLV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
kind NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
killers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
the NN O O
HRQOLI-instrument NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
Materialise NN O I-INT
Mucosa NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Materialise NN O I-INT
Bone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
Materialise NN O I-INT
mucosa NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Mental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
little NN O O
difference NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
flapped NN O O
implant NN O O
placement NN O O
to NN O O
experience NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24714816)

Salivary NN O O
testosterone NN O O
and NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
A NN O O
were NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O O
training NN O O
on NN O O
salivary NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
IgA NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
hormone NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
sedentary NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
approval NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
participation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
circuit NN O O
with NN O O
six NN O O
stations NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Training NN O O
intensity NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eight-repetition NN O O
maximum NN O O
( NN O O
8RM NN O O
) NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
gender- NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
BMI-matched NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Salivary NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Work NN O O
task NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
repetitive NN O O
weighted-box-stacking NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

Resistance NN O O
training NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
salivary NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.0120 NN O O
; NN O O
d=0.94 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
testosterone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.0088 NN O O
; NN O O
d=1.57 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercising NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
also NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
exercised NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
protocol NN O O
improved NN O O
mucosal NN O O
immunity NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
salivary NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
in NN O O
sedentary NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24732169)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
mixed NN O I-INT
kinesio NN O I-INT
taping-compression NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
mixed NN O O
Kinesio NN O I-INT
taping NN O I-INT
( NN O O
KT NN O O
) NN O O
model NN O O
on NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROAM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perimeter NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
limbs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CVI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Clinical NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Consecutive NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=130 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
65.44?14.7y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
CVI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
participant NN O O
withdrew NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
KT-compression NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
KT NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
gastrocnemius NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
enhancement NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
functional NN O I-INT
correction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ankle NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
adding NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
tapes NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
simulate NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
bandages NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
KT NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
KT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O I-OUT
ROAM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perimeter NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
8.76 NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
4.96-12.55 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
pre-/posttreatment NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
limbs NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexion NN O I-OUT
ROAM NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.02-2.49 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cadence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
3.45-1.47 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stride NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
21.48-10.83 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
step NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.68-6.61 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stance NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
61-107 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
.56-.92 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
malleolus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.15-1.63 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
None NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
modified NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Ankle NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexion NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
remain NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CVI NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
KT-compression NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
KT NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
effect NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O O
perception NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24737062)

Classification NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
imagery NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Effective NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
imagery NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
seen NN O O
as NN O O
strong NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sensorimotor NN O O
rhythm NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
key NN O O
element NN O O
in NN O O
motor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
optimization NN O O
of NN O O
methods NN O O
to NN O O
classify NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
is NN O O
performing NN O O
the NN O O
imagery NN O O
task NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prerequisite NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
optimal NN O O
classification NN O O
method NN O O
should NN O O
have NN O O
high NN O O
performance NN O O
accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
channels NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
spatial NN O O
pattern NN O O
filtering NN O O
( NN O O
CSP NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
linear NN O O
discriminant NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
LDA NN O O
) NN O O
classifier NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
different NN O O
channel NN O O
configurations NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
hemispheric NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
EEGs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
using NN O O
60 NN O O
channels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
classifier NN O O
was NN O O
trained NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
motor NN O O
execution NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
both NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
recordings NN O O
was NN O O
initially NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
electrodes NN O O
recording NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
cortex NN O O
area NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
later NN O O
repeated NN O O
using NN O O
45 NN O O
electrodes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
CSP NN O O
to NN O O
LDA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
characteristic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AU-ROC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
0.70 NN O O
( NN O O
acceptable NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
then NN O O
repeated NN O O
the NN O O
LDA+CSP NN O O
method NN O O
on NN O O
recordings NN O O
of NN O O
45 NN O O
electrodes NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
imagery NN O O
neuronal NN O O
circuits NN O O
may NN O O
well NN O O
extend NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AU-ROC NN O I-OUT
rose NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
0.90 NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
virtual NN O I-OUT
'most NN O I-OUT
responsible NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
electrode NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
successfully NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O O
hemisphere NN O O
to NN O O
train NN O O
the NN O O
classifier NN O O
( NN O O
AU-ROC NN O O
? NN O O
0.70 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
Including NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
channels NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
unaffected NN O O
motor NN O O
cortex NN O O
is NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
train NN O O
a NN O O
classifier NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24738609)

Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Tapentadol NN O I-INT
Prolonged NN O O
Release NN O O
( NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
Versus NN O O
a NN O O
Combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Pregabalin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
Management NN O O
of NN O O
Severe NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Chronic NN O I-PAR
Low NN O I-PAR
Back NN O I-PAR
Pain NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Neuropathic NN O I-PAR
Component NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
Phase NN O O
3b NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
versus NN O O
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR/pregabalin NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
component NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
painDETECT NN O I-PAR
unclear NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
ratings NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
intensity NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11-point NN O I-PAR
NRS-3 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
3-day NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
intensity NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
with NN O O
? NN O O
1-point NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
randomized NN O O
to NN O I-INT
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/pregabalin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
comparative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
288 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
comparable NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR/pregabalin NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
randomization NN O O
to NN O O
final NN O O
evaluation NN O O
( NN O O
LOCF NN O O
; NN O O
LSMD NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
-0.066 NN O O
[ NN O O
-0.57 NN O O
, NN O O
0.43 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
for NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Neuropathic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tolerability NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
good NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
line NN O O
with NN O O
prior NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
500 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
favorable NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
historical NN O O
combination NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
strong NN O O
opioids NN O O
and NN O O
anticonvulsants NN O O
for NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
of NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O I-INT
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR NN O I-INT
( NN O O
16.9 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR/pregabalin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
27.0 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0302 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Tapentadol NN O I-INT
PR NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
comparable NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tapentadol NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg/pregabalin NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
suggesting NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
tapentadol NN O O
PR NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
component NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24767004)

Cognitive NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Based NN O O
on NN O O
findings NN O O
that NN O O
major NN O O
depressive NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
MDD NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
to NN O O
decreased NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortical NN O O
( NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
) NN O O
activity NN O O
; NN O O
interventions NN O O
that NN O O
increase NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
activity NN O O
might NN O O
theoretically NN O O
present NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
are NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
neurocognitive NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
uses NN O O
computer-based NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
exercises NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
transcranial NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
tDCS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
delivers NN O O
weak NN O O
, NN O O
electric NN O O
direct NN O O
currents NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
scalp NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
tDCS NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CCT NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sham NN O I-INT
tDCS NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CCT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
tDCS NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CCT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CCT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tDCS NN O I-INT
were NN O O
applied NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
workdays NN O O
. NN O O

Clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01434836 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
CCT NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
tDCS NN O O
ameliorated NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
better NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
task NN O I-PAR
throughout NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
possibly NN O O
indicating NN O O
greater NN O O
engagement NN O O
and NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
exploratory NN O O
findings NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
CCT NN O O
and NN O O
tDCS NN O O
combined NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
cognitive NN O O
resources NN O O
to NN O O
adequately NN O O
learn NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
task NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
specifically NN O O
relevant NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
subgroup NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
prone NN O O
to NN O O
present NN O O
cognitive NN O O
decline NN O O
and NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortical NN O O
atrophy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24768960)

To NN O O
excise NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ablate NN O I-INT
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
trial NN O O
after NN O O
5-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
for NN O O
ablation NN O I-INT
or NN O O
excision NN O I-INT
of NN O O
endometriosis NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
Canadian NN O O
Task NN O O
Force NN O O
classification NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Endometriosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
reproductive NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
visually NN O I-PAR
proved NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-INT
rating NN O I-INT
various NN O O
kinds NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
using NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scales NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
visual NN O O
identification NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
via NN O O
ablation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
by NN O O
supervised NN O O
training NN O O
gynecologists NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
surgeons NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
documented NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
repeat NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
dyspareunia NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
excision NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
at NN O O
univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.007 NN O O
at NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ablation NN O O
group NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
medical NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endometriosis NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
endometriosis NN O O
provides NN O O
symptom NN O O
reduction NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
some NN O O
limited NN O O
areas NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
deep NN O O
dyspareunia NN O O
, NN O O
excision NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
ablation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24771618)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O O
for NN O O
identifying NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Weight NN O O
losses NN O O
in NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
success NN O O
is NN O O
difficult NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
various NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
thresholds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
1-year NN O O
outcomes NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
2327 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI:35.8 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
6.0 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
the NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ILI NN O I-INT
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Look NN O O
AHEAD NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O I-INT
ILI NN O I-INT
included NN O O
weekly NN O O
behavioral NN O O
sessions NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
caloric NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
1-month NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
2-month NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Participants NN O O
failing NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
?2 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
Month NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
5.6 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI:4.5 NN O O
, NN O O
7.0 NN O O
) NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
also NN O O
not NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
?10 NN O O
% NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
Year NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
losing NN O O
?2 NN O O
% NN O O
initially NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
odds NN O O
were NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
11.6 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI:8.6 NN O O
, NN O O
15.6 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
Month NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
15.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O O
failing NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
the NN O O
?2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
?3 NN O O
% NN O O
thresholds NN O O
at NN O O
Months NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
go NN O O
on NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
?10 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
Year NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Given NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
initial NN O O
and NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O O
few NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
opportune NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
and NN O O
utilize NN O O
rescue NN O O
efforts NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00017953 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24781567)

Sedation NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Low NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
Bispectral NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BIS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
delirium NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomized NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
repair NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BIS NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
deep NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BIS NN O I-INT
approximately NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
equivalent NN O O
across NN O O
sedation NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
serious NN O O
comorbidities NN O O
( NN O O
Charlson NN O O
score NN O O
> NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
light NN O I-INT
( NN O O
22.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
( NN O O
43.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
sedation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.43 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.19-0.97 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
Charlson NN O O
score NN O O
> NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
light NN O I-INT
( NN O O
28.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
( NN O O
52.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
sedation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.33 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.12-0.94 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Further NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
light NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24824660)

A NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
D-cycloserine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
stereotypies NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
( NN O O
ASDs NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
core NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O O
, NN O O
stereotypic NN O O
behaviors NN O O
and NN O O
restricted NN O O
interests NN O O
. NN O O

Older NN O O
adolescents NN O O
and NN O O
young NN O O
adults NN O O
are NN O O
particularly NN O O
impacted NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
deficits NN O O
. NN O O

Preclinical NN O O
data NN O O
implicate NN O O
glutamatergic NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiology NN O O
of NN O O
ASDs NN O O
. NN O O

D-Cycloserine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DCS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
glycineB NN O O
agonist NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
N-methyl-D-aspartic NN O O
acid NN O O
receptor NN O O
site NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
sociability NN O O
in NN O O
mouse NN O O
models NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
human NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
obligatory NN O O
glycineB NN O O
co-agonist NN O O
binding NN O O
site NN O O
may NN O O
change NN O O
with NN O O
daily NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
DCS NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
agonist-induced NN O O
desensitization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
pulsed NN O O
once-weekly NN O O
administration NN O O
versus NN O O
daily NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
DCS NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Fourth NN O I-PAR
Edition NN O I-PAR
Text NN O I-PAR
Revision NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
10-week NN O O
trial NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
weekly NN O O
or NN O O
daily NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
DCS NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
the NN O O
purposes NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
or NN O O
clinical NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
existed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
dosage NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
stereotypies/repetitive NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
When NN O O
combining NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
when NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
linear NN O O
mixed NN O O
effects NN O O
model NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
D-Cycloserine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O O
adolescents NN O O
and NN O O
young NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
ASDs NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
DCS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24830566)

Caudal NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
using NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
dromedary NN O I-PAR
camels NN O I-PAR
Camelus NN O I-PAR
dromedarius NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
following NN O O
epidural NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
dromedary NN O I-PAR
camels NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ten NN O I-PAR
12-18-month-old NN O I-PAR
camels NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
L NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
animals NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.22 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
LK NN O O
the NN O O
animals NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
mixture NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.22 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
intercoccygeal NN O O
( NN O O
Co1-Co2 NN O O
) NN O O
epidural NN O O
space NN O O
while NN O O
standing NN O O
. NN O O

Onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caudal NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ataxia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
by NN O O
U NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
significance NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
as NN O O
p NN O O
& NN O O
lt NN O O
; NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
co-administration NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tail NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anus NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perineum NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Epidural NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine-ketamine NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whilst NN O O
the NN O O
animals NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
were NN O O
alert NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Ataxia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
test NN O O
subjects NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
in NN O O
camels NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine-ketamine NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
epidural NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
longer NN O O
caudal NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
standing NN O I-PAR
conscious NN O I-PAR
dromedary NN O I-PAR
camels NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
administering NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24878589)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
arm NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
games NN O I-INT
on NN O O
upper-extremity NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subacute NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
( NN O I-INT
electro NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
robotics NN O I-INT
, NN O O
could NN O O
partly NN O O
relieve NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
strain NN O O
on NN O O
stroke NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increasing NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

Arm NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
unsupported NN O O
arm NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
weight-supported NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
computerized NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
on NN O O
arm NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
dose-matched NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
reach NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
subacute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O I-PAR
subacute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O I-INT
with NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
AS NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dose-matched NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CON NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Arm NN O O
function NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
pretraining NN O O
and NN O O
posttraining NN O O
by NN O O
Fugl-Meyer NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Stroke NN O I-OUT
Upper NN O I-OUT
Limb NN O I-OUT
Capacity NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SULCS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
via NN O I-OUT
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analogue NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
perceived NN O O
motivation NN O O
by NN O O
Intrinsic NN O O
Motivation NN O O
Inventory NN O O
posttraining NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
FM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SULCS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
within NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
improvements NN O O
and NN O O
experienced NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
AS NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
interest/enjoyment NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
training NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
CON NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AS NN O O
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
conventional NN O O
therapy NN O O
dedicated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
arm NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
arm NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subacute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
applied NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24885187)

Quantitative NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
HER2 NN O O
and NN O O
phospho-HER2 NN O O
expression NN O O
: NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
pathologic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
trastuzumab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Preoperative NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
HER2-targeted NN O I-INT
monoclonal NN O I-INT
antibody NN O I-INT
trastuzumab NN O I-INT
is NN O O
valuable NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
HER2-positive NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HER2+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
traditional NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
measuring NN O O
HER2 NN O O
expression NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
accurately NN O O
stratify NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O O
immunofluorescent NN O O
approaches NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
mathematically NN O O
continuous NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
HER2 NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
we NN O O
seek NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
quantitative NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
HER2 NN O O
or NN O O
phospho-HER2 NN O O
correlates NN O O
with NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
trastuzumab- NN O O
containing NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
core NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
HER2+ NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
trastuzumab NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nab-paclitaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
BrUOG NN O I-PAR
BR-211B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NCT00617942 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tumor NN O O
core NN O O
biopsies NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
before NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
9-13 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
run-in NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
single NN O O
agent NN O O
trastuzumab NN O I-INT
or NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
AQUA NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
quantitative NN O O
immunofluorescence NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
protein NN O O
expression NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
then NN O O
received NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
followed NN O O
by NN O O
surgery NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
pathologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
HER2 NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
2111 NN O O
by NN O O
AQUA NN O O
analysis NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
HER2 NN O O
3+ NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
staining NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
20 NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
cases NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
pathologic NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
pathCR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
HER2 NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
10251 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
4766 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
pathCR NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0021 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
phospho-HER2 NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
pathCR NN O O
vs NN O O
non-pathCR NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
HER2 NN O O
levels NN O O
repeated NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
trastuzumab NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
phospho-HER2 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
High NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pathCR NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Phospho-HER2 NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
data NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
accurate NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
HER2 NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pre-surgical NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
validation NN O O
in NN O O
larger NN O O
cohorts NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
data NN O O
shows NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24897394)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
postpartum NN O I-OUT
periods NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Postpartum NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
maternal NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
developed NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reason NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
maternal NN O O
deaths NN O O
is NN O O
postpartum NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
while NN O O
this NN O O
percentage NN O O
reaches NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
use NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
times NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
3rd NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
delivery NN O O
on NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postpartum NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
89 NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
oxytocin NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
placenta NN O I-INT
separation NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
oxytocin NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
shoulder NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
delivery NN O O
were NN O O
quantified NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
biochemical NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemotocrit NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
delivery NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
?-hemoglobin NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
> NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
?-hematocrit NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
> NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
prepartum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postpartum NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
change NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
prepartum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postpartum NN O I-OUT
hemotocrit NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
shoulder NN O O
delivery NN O O
has NN O O
more NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
decreasing NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24913600)

A NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
adherence NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O O
improved NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
mediation NN O O
by NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
adherence NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
adherence NN O O
profiles NN O O
mediated NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
brief NN O I-PAR
adherence NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adherence NN O I-INT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Medication NN O O
Event NN O O
Monitoring NN O O
System NN O O
. NN O O

Longitudinal NN O O
analysis NN O O
via NN O O
growth NN O O
curve NN O O
mixture NN O O
modeling NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
classify NN O O
patients NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
adherence NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
hypoglycemic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hemoglobin NN O O
A1c NN O O
assays NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Across NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
adherence NN O O
profiles NN O O
mediated NN O O
35.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
13.2 NN O O
, NN O O
81.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
adherence NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
from NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
8.48 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
3.24 NN O O
, NN O O
22.2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
4.00 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
( NN O O
1.34 NN O O
, NN O O
11.93 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
largely NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
greater NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
hypoglycemic NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24919102)

Balance NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
parks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
balance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
developed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
parks NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
functionality NN O O
and NN O O
general NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
68.5 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2.9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
balance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
that NN O O
lasted NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
sessions NN O O
taking NN O O
place NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
exercises/session NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Balance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Berg NN O I-OUT
Balance NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Timed NN O I-OUT
Up NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
Go NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
generic NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
SF-12 NN O O
Health NN O O
Survey NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
tests NN O O
showed NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Public NN O I-PAR
parks NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
adequate NN O O
installations NN O O
for NN O O
developing NN O O
balance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24920862)

Variations NN O O
in NN O O
EEG NN O I-OUT
discharges NN O I-OUT
predict NN O O
ADHD NN O O
severity NN O O
within NN O O
individual NN O I-PAR
Smith-Lemli-Opitz NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
EEG NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
Smith-Lemli-Opitz NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SLOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
interictal NN O O
epileptiform NN O O
discharges NN O O
( NN O O
IEDs NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
within-subject NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
attentional NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
SLOS NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
and NN O O
repeated-measure NN O O
observational NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
EEG NN O I-INT
findings NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive/behavioral NN O O
factors NN O O
on NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
EEGs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
IEDs NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
readers NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
behavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
IEDs NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Within-subject NN O O
analyses NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
IEDs NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
85 NN O O
EEGs NN O O
, NN O O
43 NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
predominantly NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
IEDs NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
one NN O O
subject NN O O
had NN O O
documented NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
IEDs NN O O
clustered NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
whereas NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
EEGs NN O I-PAR
consistently NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
IEDs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
While NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
sex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intellectual NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
prevalent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IED NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule-2 NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Within NN O O
individuals NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
IEDs NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
particular NN O O
EEG NN O O
predicted NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
ADHD NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Epileptiform NN O O
discharges NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
SLOS NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
. NN O O

Fluctuations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
epileptiform NN O O
discharges NN O O
within NN O O
individual NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
developmental NN O O
disability NN O O
syndrome NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fluctuations NN O O
in NN O O
ADHD NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
seizures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24928832)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
afatinib NN O O
versus NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
in NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Afatinib NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
, NN O O
irreversible NN O O
ErbB NN O O
family NN O O
blocker NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
epidermal NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
EGFR NN O O
) NN O O
-mutated NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
agent NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
greater NN O O
antitumor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
in NN O O
recurrent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
R/M NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HNSCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
has NN O I-PAR
progressed NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
platinum-containing NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
An NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
43 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
124 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
afatinib NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
cetuximab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/week NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
progression NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intolerable NN O I-INT
adverse NN O I-INT
events NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AEs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
stage NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
optional NN O I-INT
crossover NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
stage NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
shrinkage NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
crossover NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
investigator NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
review NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
121 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
afatinib NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
cetuximab NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
crossed NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
stage NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
shrinkage NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
IR/ICR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.4 NN O O
% NN O O
/16.6 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
afatinib NN O O
and NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
/10.1 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.46/0.30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16.1 NN O O
% NN O O
/8.1 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
afatinib NN O O
and NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
/9.7 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
( NN O O
IR/ICR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comparable NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
afatinib NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
( NN O O
56.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
IR NN O O
; NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
by NN O O
ICR NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
common NN O O
grade NN O O
?3 NN O I-OUT
drug-related NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DRAEs NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
rash/acne NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
18 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
8.3 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
stomatitis/mucositis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
11.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
afatinib NN O O
and NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
DRAEs NN O I-OUT
leading NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
23 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
afatinib NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IR/ICR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
38.9 NN O O
% NN O O
/33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
afatinib NN O O
and NN O O
18.8 NN O O
% NN O O
/18.8 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Afatinib NN O O
showed NN O I-OUT
antitumor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
in NN O O
R/M NN O I-PAR
HNSCC NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O O
exploratory NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
afatinib NN O O
discontinued NN O O
treatment NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
AEs NN O O
. NN O O

Sequential NN O O
EGFR/ErbB NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
afatinib NN O O
and NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
provided NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
after NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
cross-resistance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24934732)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
laparoendoscopic NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
site NN O I-INT
donor NN O I-INT
nephrectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
donation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Few NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
laparoendoscopic NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
site NN O I-INT
donor NN O I-INT
nephrectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LESS-DN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
over NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
donor NN O I-INT
nephrectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LDN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
initiated NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
LESS-DN NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
LDN NN O I-INT
from NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
postdonation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
complete NN O O
recovery/satisfaction NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
postdonation NN O O
; NN O O
transplant NN O O
recipient NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
LESS-DN NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
LDN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
donor NN O I-PAR
demographics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
predominance NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
living-unrelated NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
donor NN O I-PAR
nephrectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Operative NN O I-PAR
parameters NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
warm NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Conversion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hand-assist NN O I-OUT
laparoscopy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
LESS-DN NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
2 NN O O
LDN NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3.9 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Questionnaires NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
97.2 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
LESS-DN NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
79.5 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
LDN NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O I-OUT
recovered NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
donation NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Recipient NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
LESS NN O O
donor NN O O
nephrectomy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
LDN NN O I-INT
confirms NN O O
that NN O I-INT
LESS-DN NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
LDN NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
intra- NN O O
and NN O O
post-operative NN O O
complications NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
LDN NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
LESS-DN NN O I-INT
offer NN O O
similar NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
donation NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24939380)

Electrothermal NN O I-INT
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
capsulorrhaphy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
old NN O O
technology NN O O
, NN O O
new NN O O
evidence NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Radiofrequency NN O O
technology NN O O
for NN O O
shoulder NN O I-PAR
instability NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
rapidly NN O O
adopted NN O O
despite NN O O
limited NN O O
clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
indications NN O O
. NN O O

Reports NN O O
of NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
followed NN O O
, NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
abandonment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
presents NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
electrothermal NN O I-INT
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
capsulorrhaphy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ETAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
inferior NN O I-INT
capsular NN O I-INT
shift NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
reviews NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
adopting NN O O
new NN O O
technology NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multidirectional NN O I-PAR
instability NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
multidirectional NN O I-PAR
laxity NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anteroinferior NN O I-PAR
instability NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
nonoperative NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
labral NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
biceps NN O I-PAR
anchor NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
full-thickness NN O I-PAR
rotator NN O I-PAR
cuff NN O I-PAR
tears NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
intraoperatively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcomes NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
Shoulder NN O I-OUT
Instability NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
instability NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Fifty-four NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ETAC NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
open NN O O
ICS NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
external NN O I-OUT
rotation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
or NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
Shoulder NN O I-OUT
Instability NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.71 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
American NN O I-OUT
Shoulder NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Elbow NN O I-OUT
Surgeons NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
.43 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Constant NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
.43 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Recurrent NN O I-OUT
instability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
ETAC NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.41 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ETAC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
23 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
open NN O O
ICS NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
ETAC NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
open NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
stiff NN O O
shoulders NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
At NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
clinically NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

ETAC NN O O
had NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
open NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
evidence NN O O
reinforces NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
critically NN O O
evaluate NN O O
new NN O O
technology NN O O
before NN O O
widespread NN O O
clinical NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24982504)

Tacrolimus/sirolimus NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
tacrolimus/methotrexate NN O I-INT
as NN O O
GVHD NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
related NN O O
donor NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
HCT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Grades NN O O
2-4 NN O O
acute NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
GVHD NN O O
) NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
approximately NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
matched NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
donor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MRD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sirolimus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Tac/Sir NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Tac/Mtx NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
acute NN O O
GVHD NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
mortality NN O O
after NN O O
allogeneic NN O O
MRD NN O O
HCT NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
114-day NN O I-OUT
grades NN O I-OUT
2-4 NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
GVHD-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
304 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
day NN O O
114 NN O O
grades NN O O
2-4 NN O O
acute NN O O
GVHD-free NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.38 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Grades NN O I-OUT
2-4 NN O I-OUT
GVHD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Tac/Sir NN O O
and NN O O
Tac/Mtx NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.48 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neutrophil NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
engraftment NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Tac/Sir NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
vs NN O O
16 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
; NN O O
16 NN O O
vs NN O O
19 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Oropharyngeal NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Tac/Sir NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
peak NN O O
Oral NN O I-OUT
Mucositis NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
0.70 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.96 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
otherwise NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Chronic NN O I-OUT
GVHD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.06 NN O O
; NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.77 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
similar NN O O
long-term NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
engraftment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
oropharyngeal NN O O
mucositis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
Tac/Sir NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
Tac/Mtx NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
MRD NN O I-PAR
HCT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
funded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Heart NN O O
, NN O O
Lung NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Blood NN O O
Institute NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Institute NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
as NN O O
# NN O O
NCT00406393 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24988121)

Traumatic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury-related NN O I-PAR
attention NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
lisdexamfetamine NN O I-INT
dimesylate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Vyvanse NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Attention NN O O
deficits NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
persistent NN O O
and NN O O
debilitating NN O O
impairments NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
traumatic NN O O
brain NN O O
injury NN O O
( NN O O
TBI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
lisdexamfetamine NN O I-INT
dimesylate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Vyvanse NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
lisdexamfetamine NN O I-INT
dimesylate NN O I-INT
with NN O O
this NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
fact NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
examining NN O O
a NN O O
stimulant NN O O
medication NN O O
option NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
rigorously NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
16-42 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
attention NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
persisting NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
6-34 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
post-injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
broad NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioural NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
6-weeks NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
12-weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
AND NN O O
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Positive NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
involving NN O O
selective NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
major NN O O
problems NN O O
with NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
moderating NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
broad NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
subject NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
injury NN O O
variables NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

Avenues NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
applications NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25009139)

Autism NN O O
Spectrum NN O O
Social NN O O
Stories NN O O
In NN O O
Schools NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
ASSSIST NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
feasibility NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
analysing NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Stories NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mainstream NN O O
schools NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Current NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
Social NN O I-INT
Stories NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
tackling NN O O
problem NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
exhibited NN O O
by NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exploring NN O O
the NN O O
meaning NN O O
of NN O O
behaviour NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
perspective NN O O
allows NN O O
stories NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
social NN O O
information NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
tailored NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
needs NN O O
. NN O O

Case NN O O
reports NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
stories NN O O
can NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
benefits NN O O
including NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
choice NN O I-OUT
making NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
educational NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
ANALYSIS NN O O
The NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
Social NN O I-INT
Stories NN O I-INT
toolkit NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
control NN O O
framework NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=50 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Social NN O I-INT
Stories NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
comparator NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
where NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
read NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
stories NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
equivalent NN O I-PAR
amount NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Statistics NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
calculated NN O O
for NN O O
recruitment NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attrition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Economic NN O O
analysis NN O O
will NN O O
determine NN O O
appropriate NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
generic NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
categories NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Qualitative NN O O
analysis NN O O
will NN O O
ascertain NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
perceptions NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

ETHICS NN O O
AND NN O O
DISSEMINATION NN O O
National NN O O
Health NN O O
Service NN O O
Ethics NN O O
Approval NN O O
( NN O O
NHS NN O O
; NN O O
ref NN O O
11/YH/0340 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
protocol NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
obtained NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
NHS NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Development NN O O
permission NN O O
from NN O O
Leeds NN O O
and NN O O
York NN O O
Partnership NN O O
NHS NN O O
Foundation NN O O
Trust NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
closely NN O O
monitored NN O O
, NN O O
documented NN O O
and NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
Data NN O O
Monitoring NN O O
Ethics NN O O
Committee NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
article NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
peer NN O O
reviewed NN O O
journal NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
published NN O O
and NN O O
research NN O O
findings NN O O
presented NN O O
at NN O O
relevant NN O O
conferences NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
ISRCTN96286707 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25029834)

[ NN O O
Case-controll NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
synergistic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
knee NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
after NN O O
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
debridement NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
synergistic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
after NN O O
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
debridement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
From NN O O
May NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
53.62 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6.53 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10.35 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6.42 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
debridement NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
54.34 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7.67 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11.94 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
5.13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Those NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
only NN O O
with NN O O
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
debridment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
performed NN O O
isometric NN O I-INT
quadriceps NN O I-INT
femoris NN O I-INT
contraction NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
flexion NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
extension NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Lysholm NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
15.6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Lysholm NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
item NN O O
demanding NN O O
for NN O O
support NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
respectively NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
to NN O O
Lysholm NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
limp NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stair NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
squat NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
items NN O O
of NN O O
interlocking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
instability NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Electroacupuncture NN O O
can NN O O
effectively NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
knee NN O O
joint NN O O
's NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
joints NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
synergistic NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
after NN O O
arthroscopic NN O O
debridement NN O O
, NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
better NN O O
long-term NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
of NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O O
joint NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
traditional NN O O
Chinese NN O O
medicine NN O O
and NN O O
Western NN O O
Medicine NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
worth NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
application NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25047312)

Intramuscular NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
for NN O O
paediatric NN O O
sedation NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Sedation NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
a NN O O
controversial NN O O
issue NN O O
in NN O O
emergency NN O O
departments NN O O
( NN O O
ED NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Midazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
benzodiazepine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
procedural NN O O
sedation NN O O
among NN O O
paediatrics NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
prescription NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
IM NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
sedation NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
evaluating NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cooperation NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
followed NN O O
every NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
O NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
6.18 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2.88 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
51.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
sedated NN O I-OUT
completely NN O O
after NN O O
using NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
68.3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

35 NN O O
( NN O O
58.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
presented NN O I-OUT
euphoria NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
complication NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.396 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cases NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
became NN O I-OUT
sedated NN O I-OUT
faster NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
received NN O I-INT
IM NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
including NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
O NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
sedation NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
IM NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
are NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
paediatric NN O O
sedation NN O O
in NN O O
ED NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
sedative NN O O
with NN O O
IV NN O O
form NN O O
might NN O O
appear NN O O
sooner NN O O
, NN O O
IM NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
effectively NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
limited NN O O
IV NN O O
access NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
are NN O O
better NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
closely NN O O
for NN O O
psychological NN O O
side-effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25066648)

Complex NN O I-INT
decongestive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
taping NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
postmastectomy NN O I-PAR
lymphedema NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Kinesio NN O I-INT
Taping NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Application NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Complex NN O I-INT
Decongestive NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CDT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lymphedema NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
CDT NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
Bandage NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CDT NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
Bandage NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Kinesio NN O I-INT
Tape NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CDT NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
Kinesio NN O I-INT
Tape NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
bandage NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Assessments NN O I-INT
included NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heaviness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weakness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Bilateral NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
done NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
edema NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CDT NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
effective NN O O
only NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.05 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Kinesio NN O I-INT
Taping NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
with NN O O
CDT NN O I-INT
had NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
10 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Kinesio NN O I-INT
Taping NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
also NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Kinesio NN O I-INT
Taping NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Application NN O I-INT
along NN O O
with NN O I-INT
CDT NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
have NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
lymphedema NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
stimulate NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2510260)

Rioprostil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
E1 NN O O
analogue NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
once-daily NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
recurrence NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Rioprostil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
E1 NN O O
analogue NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
rioprostil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
110 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
rioprostil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
14.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
10.1 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
rioprostil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Rioprostil NN O I-INT
given NN O O
600 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
relapse NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
being NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25122693)

Pathological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
strategies NN O O
with NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
MRI-defined NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
T3 NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
noncomparative NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
T3 NN O O
rectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
RC NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
preoperative NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU-RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
New NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
options NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
noncomparative NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
MRI-defined NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
T3 NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
RC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
12-week NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Folfox-4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bevacizumab-5-FU-RT NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
mesorectal NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TME NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O O
bevacizumab-5-FU-RT NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
TME NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
pathological NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
pCR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Forty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pCR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
23.8 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
12.1 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
39.5 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
statistically NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
defined NN O O
standard NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pCR NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
11.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3.8 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
24.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.906 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
until NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
following NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
fistulas NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Even NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
bevacizumab NN O O
induced NN O O
manageable NN O O
toxicities NN O I-OUT
including NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
fistula NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
treatment-related NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
achieve NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
pCR NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O O
bevacizumab-Folfox-4 NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
bevacizumab-5-FU-RT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
promising NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
however NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
investigations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
locally NN O O
advanced NN O O
RC NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIALSGOV NN O O
IDENTIFIER NN O O
NCT NN O O
00865189 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25162407)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
Transcutaneous NN O I-INT
Electrical NN O I-INT
Nerve NN O I-INT
Stimulation NN O I-INT
Device NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Early NN O I-OUT
Osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Knee NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Some NN O O
have NN O O
proposed NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
issues NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-OUT
osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
isokinetic NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Metrics NN O O
analyzed NN O O
included NN O O
stair-climb NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
timed-up-and-go NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TUGT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
2-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
single NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
6-inch NN O I-OUT
step NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
five-repetition NN O I-OUT
chair-rise NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
passive NN O I-OUT
range-of-motion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
short NN O I-OUT
form NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
survey-36 NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Knee NN O I-OUT
Society NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
KSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LEFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
isokinetic NN O I-OUT
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hamstring NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
objective NN O O
functional NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
TENS NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
TUGT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
KSS NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
matching NN O O
cohort NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
LEFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
TENS NN O O
brace NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TENS NN O O
device NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
evaluation NN O O
for NN O O
improvement NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
TENS NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TUG NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
timed NN O I-OUT
stair-climb NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
20-times NN O I-OUT
single NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
KSS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LEFS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
initial NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
TENS NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
via NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
their NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
TENS NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
encouraging NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
painful NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritic NN O I-PAR
knees NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
positively NN O O
contribute NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
current NN O O
nonoperative NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O O
arthritis NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
our NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
larger NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
evaluate NN O O
these NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25180722)

Impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
mobilization NN O I-INT
on NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ICU-acquired NN O I-OUT
weakness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
mechanically NN O I-PAR
ventilated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
ICU-acquired NN O I-OUT
weakness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICU-AW NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
immediate NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
consequences NN O O
for NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Strategies NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
weakness NN O O
include NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
known NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O O
and NN O O
immobility NN O O
. NN O O

Intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IIT NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
critical NN O O
illness NN O O
polyneuropathy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
mobilization NN O O
on NN O O
clinically NN O O
apparent NN O O
weakness NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
104 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
occupational NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
point NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-OUT
independence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Every NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
IIT NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
blinded NN O I-PAR
muscle NN O I-PAR
strength NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
apparent NN O I-OUT
weakness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICU-AW NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
On NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
early NN O O
mobilization NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
insulin NN O O
dose NN O O
prevented NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICU-AW NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
0.18 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
; NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.011 NN O O
; NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
known NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
weakness NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
mobilization NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
achieve NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
goals NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
0.07 NN O O
units/kg/d NN O O
vs NN O O
0.2 NN O O
units/kg/d NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
duel NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
mobilization NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
ICU-AW NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
promoting NN O I-OUT
euglycemia NN O I-OUT
suggests NN O O
its NN O O
potential NN O O
usefulness NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
IIT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25197765)

The NN O O
Impact NN O O
of NN O O
Pupillary NN O I-INT
Dilation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Intraocular NN O O
Pressure NN O O
and NN O O
Anterior NN O O
Segment NN O O
Morphology NN O O
in NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
Pseudoexfoliation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-dilation NN O O
anterior NN O O
segment NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
intraocular NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
IOP NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
pseudoexfoliation NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
after NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tropicamide NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Totally NN O I-PAR
129 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
129 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
129 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
pseudoexfoliation NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PXS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
pseudoexfoliation NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PXG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fellow NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
pseudoexfoliation NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
subclinical NN O I-PAR
PXS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
PXS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
Pentacam NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
IOP NN O O
measurement NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
dilation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
chamber NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ACD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
chamber NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ACV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
chamber NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ACA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CCT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pupillary NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
mydriatic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
eyes NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
PXS NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
PXG NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
subclinical NN O O
PXS NN O O
and NN O O
eyes NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
1.45 NN O O
? NN O O
2.03 NN O O
mmhg NN O O
, NN O O
0.27 NN O O
? NN O O
2.25 NN O O
mmhg NN O O
, NN O O
-0.35 NN O O
? NN O O
1.58 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
-1.06 NN O O
? NN O O
1.59mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Post-dilation NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
but NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
of NN O O
PXS NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
pre-dilation NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
exhibited NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ACD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ACV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O O
procedure NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
post NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O I-OUT
CCT NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
pre-dilation NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
PXG NN O O
, NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
subclinical NN O O
PXS NN O O
and NN O O
eyes NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Eyes NN O O
with NN O O
PXS NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
tendency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
pupillary NN O O
dilation NN O O
. NN O O

Eyes NN O O
with NN O O
subclinical NN O O
PXS NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
minor NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
IOP NN O O
, NN O O
reflecting NN O O
the NN O O
asymmetrical NN O O
character NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Anti-glaucoma NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
blunted NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
pupillary NN O O
dilation NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
PXG NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25223963)

Recommending NN O O
self-paced NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
among NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
National NN O O
guidelines NN O O
call NN O O
for NN O O
exercise NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
moderate NN O O
intensity NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
recommending NN O O
self-paced NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
among NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
proof-of-concept NN O O
for NN O O
recommending NN O O
self-paced NN O O
exercise NN O O
among NN O O
overweight NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low-active NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
min/week NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
25.0-39.9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18-65 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O I-INT
print-based NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
goal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
30-60 NN O I-INT
min/day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
surreptitiously NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
recommendation NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
self-paced NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
moderate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
64-76 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
maximum NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
29 NN O O
) NN O O
intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
electronic NN O I-PAR
diaries NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
monitors NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
track NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
self-paced NN O O
condition NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
minutes/week NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
f NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.17 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
exercise-related NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure/week NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
f NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.12 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.243 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
approximately NN O O
26 NN O O
additional NN O O
minutes/week NN O O
and NN O O
83 NN O O
additional NN O O
kilocalories/week NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Explicit NN O O
recommendation NN O O
for NN O O
self-paced NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
improve NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
programs NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25225698)

Methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
opioids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25234471)

Levels NN O O
of NN O O
metals NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
and NN O O
specific NN O O
porphyrins NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
urine NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
metals NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Zn NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
copper NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cu NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aluminium NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Al NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lead NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Pb NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mercury NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
porphyrin NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
urine NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
neurological NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
neurological NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
terms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
abilities NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Mann-Whitney NN O I-PAR
U NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
565.0 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.595 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measurement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-OUT
metals NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-INT
atomic NN O I-INT
absorption NN O I-INT
spectrometry NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
HPLC NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
fluorescence NN O I-INT
detector NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
urinary NN O I-INT
porphyrin NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
across NN O O
groups NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
( NN O O
MANCOVA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
generalized NN O O
linear NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
membership NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
Cu/Zn NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metals NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
ASD NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
elevated NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
Cu/Zn NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Wald NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
6.6 NN O O
, NN O O
df NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
uroporphyrin NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heptacarboxyporphyrin NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hexacarboxyporphyrin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pentacarboxyporphyrin NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coproporphyrin NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coproporphyrin NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
ASD NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
observed NN O O
higher NN O O
Cu/Zn NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
it NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Zn NN O O
and NN O O
Cu NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
autistic NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
give NN O O
them NN O O
a NN O O
Zn NN O O
supplement NN O O
if NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25234479)

Successful NN O O
face NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
activation NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examines NN O O
whether NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism-spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
recruitment NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O O
structures NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
selective NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
functional NN O I-INT
MRI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
one-back NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
in NN O O
which NN O O
images NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
faces NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
houses NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
superimposed NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
When NN O O
attending NN O O
to NN O O
faces NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ASD NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
increased NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O O
within NN O O
multiple NN O O
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
dorsolateral NN O I-OUT
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DLPFC NN O O
activation NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
compensatory NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
diminished NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
abilities NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25234481)

Measuring NN O O
and NN O O
supporting NN O O
language NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
social-interaction-based NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
MEHRIT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
social-interaction-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
Casenhiser NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
:220-241 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
failed NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
language NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
using NN O O
standardized NN O O
language NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
present NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
re-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
illustrate NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
measuring NN O O
communicative NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
formally NN O O
called NN O O
speech NN O O
acts NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reanalysis NN O O
confirmed NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MEHRIT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
outperformed NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
community NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
MLUm NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
produced NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
various NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
act NN O I-OUT
categories NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
underscores NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
guiding NN O O
and NN O O
evaluating NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
MEHRIT NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
parent-child NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25241527)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
comparation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
thoracoscopic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
by NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
observation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
38 NN O I-INT
cases NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
37 NN O I-INT
cases NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Observation NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pleural NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
lymph NN O I-OUT
node NN O I-OUT
dissection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
tube NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25246602)

Fluticasone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preschool NN O I-PAR
wheeze NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Approximately NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
experience NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
wheezing NN O O
. NN O O

Antiasthmatic NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
is NN O O
routinely NN O O
prescribed NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
preschool NN O I-OUT
wheeze NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PWEs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
PWE NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fluticasone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PWEs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
PWE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
: NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
tobacco-exposed NN O O
children NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
PWEs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Neither NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
nor NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
has NN O O
proven NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
PWE NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
PWE NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
observation NN O O
requires NN O O
confirmation NN O O
in NN O O
larger NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25262168)

Feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
art NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
creative NN O O
engagement NN O O
intervention NN O O
during NN O O
stroke NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
on NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
ACES NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Benefits NN O O
of NN O O
art NN O O
participation NN O O
after NN O O
stroke NN O O
are NN O O
becoming NN O O
increasingly NN O O
recognized NN O O
. NN O O

Qualitative NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O O
arts NN O O
creative NN O O
engagement NN O O
interventions NN O O
( NN O O
CEIs NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
after NN O O
stroke NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hope NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
some NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
undertaking NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
CEI NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
artists NN O O
within NN O O
in-patient NN O O
stroke NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
two NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
feasibility NN O O
trial NN O O
within NN O O
in-patient NN O O
stroke NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
will NN O O
recruit NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-INT
stroke NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
stroke NN O I-INT
units NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
board NN O I-INT
area NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Scotland NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
will NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
visual-arts NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
CEI NN O I-INT
facilitated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
experienced NN O I-INT
artists NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Artists NN O I-INT
will NN O I-INT
follow NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
enable NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
set NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
achieve NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
review NN O I-INT
artistic NN O I-INT
goals NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O I-INT
will NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
eight NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
one-to-one NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
artist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Control NN O O
group NN O O
participants NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
only.Data NN O O
collection NN O O
will NN O O
occur NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
and NN O O
three-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Stroke-related NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
; NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hope NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Semi-structured NN O O
interviews NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
purposively NN O O
selected NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
artists NN O O
and NN O O
healthcare NN O O
staff NN O O
to NN O O
elicit NN O I-OUT
views NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
trial NN O O
processes NN O O
. NN O O

Recruitment NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
art NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
will NN O O
indicate NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
choosing NN O O
or NN O O
refusing NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CEI NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
allow NN O O
calculation NN O O
of NN O O
recruitment NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
future NN O O
definitive NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Summary NN O O
data NN O O
will NN O O
indicate NN O O
potential NN O O
variability NN O O
, NN O O
magnitude NN O O
and NN O O
direction NN O O
of NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
will NN O O
inform NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
calculations NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
definitive NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Thematic NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
qualitative NN O O
data NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
managed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Framework NN O O
Approach NN O O
. NN O O

Framework NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
analytical NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
qualitative NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
policy NN O O
and NN O O
medical NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
If NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
recovery NN O O
previously NN O O
. NN O O

Not NN O O
routinely NN O O
addressed NN O O
in NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Registered NN O O
with NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials.Gov NN O O
: NN O O
NCT02085226 NN O O
on NN O O
6th NN O O
March NN O O
2014 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25283504)

Pharmacodynamic NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
urate NN O I-INT
oxidase NN O I-INT
using NN O O
an NN O O
indirect NN O I-PAR
pharmacological NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
Pharmacodynamic NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
urate NN O I-INT
oxidase NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
by NN O O
Escherichia NN O O
coli NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PK/PD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
4:1 NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
infusions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
uricase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0.1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
0.2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
mg/kg NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0.2 NN O I-PAR
mg?kg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
?d NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
d NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PK NN O O
profiles NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
through NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
uricase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
PD NN O O
profiles NN O O
were NN O O
established NN O O
using NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
plasma NN O O
PD NN O O
parameter NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
as NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
indirect NN O O
response NN O O
model NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
two-compartment NN O O
PK NN O O
model NN O O
with NN O O
constant NN O O
iv NN O O
input NN O O
and NN O O
first-order NN O O
output NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
kinetic NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
uricase NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
low NN O O
value NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
U/L NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
concentration NN O O
that NN O O
achieved NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
maximum NN O O
effect NN O O
( NN O O
EC50 NN O O
) NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
low NN O O
plasma NN O O
uricase NN O O
concentrations NN O O
were NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O I-OUT
pharmacological NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
strong NN O O
relationship NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
=0.9991 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
single NN O O
dosing NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

Infusions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
uricase NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
well NN O I-PAR
tolerated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
PK/PD NN O O
model NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
effective NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
0.1 NN O I-PAR
mg/kg NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
excretion NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
uric NN O O
acid NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
index NN O O
for NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
further NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25284194)

Selenium NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Chagasic NN O I-INT
Cardiopathy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
STCC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Heart NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
Trypanosoma NN O O
cruzi NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
selenium NN O O
( NN O O
Se NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
T. NN O O
cruzi NN O O
infection NN O O
produced NN O O
promising NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Chagas NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
lower NN O O
Se NN O O
levels NN O O
than NN O O
healthy NN O O
individuals NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
T. NN O O
cruzi NN O O
infection NN O O
without NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Se NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chagasic NN O I-PAR
cardiopathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
Selenium NN O O
Treatment NN O O
and NN O O
Chagasic NN O O
Cardiopathy NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
superiority NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
eligibility NN O O
criteria NN O O
are NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Chagas NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
serology NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
segmental NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
global NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
follows NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nonchagasic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
dysphagia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
food NN O I-PAR
residues NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
esophagus NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
dysphagia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
usual NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
last NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
result NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
adherence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
100 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
selenite NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
365 NN O I-INT
consecutive NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
following NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
trajectories NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
attributable NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
dysrhythmia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
Chagas NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
hundred NN O O
thirty NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
1:1 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sequence NN O O
allocation NN O O
concealment NN O O
and NN O O
blinding NN O O
were NN O O
planned NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
numbered NN O O
boxes NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
health-care NN O O
providers NN O O
will NN O O
remain NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
If NN O O
Se NN O O
treatment NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Chagas NN O I-OUT
cardiopathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
micronutrient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
diet NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
neglected NN O O
tropical NN O O
disease NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
cost NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials.gov NN O O
ID NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00875173 NN O O
( NN O O
registered NN O O
20 NN O O
October NN O O
20 NN O O
2008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25294277)

Comparing NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
health NN O O
state NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
generation NN O O
antipsychotics NN O I-INT
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
applied NN O O
health NN O O
state NN O O
modeling NN O O
to NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Antipsychotic NN O O
Trials NN O O
of NN O O
Intervention NN O O
Effectiveness NN O O
( NN O O
CATIE NN O O
) NN O O
Schizophrenia NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
moving NN O O
to NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
favorable NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
states NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
applied NN O O
K-means NN O O
clustering NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
to NN O O
create NN O O
discrete NN O O
groupings NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
validated NN O O
using NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
compared NN O O
cluster NN O O
distributions NN O O
across NN O O
medications NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

1,049 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
cluster NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Five NN O O
health NN O O
states NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
low NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O O
LS NN O O
+ NN O O
LSE NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
low NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
obesity NN O O
( NN O O
LS NN O O
+ NN O O
Ob NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
high NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O O
HS NN O O
+ NN O O
LSE NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
high NN O O
symptoms NN O O
with NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
akathisia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HS NN O O
+ NN O O
Dp NN O O
+ NN O O
Ak NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
moderate NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O O
MS NN O O
+ NN O O
HSE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Six-month NN O O
outcomes NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
quetiapine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
almost NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
worst NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HS NN O O
+ NN O O
Dp NN O O
+ NN O O
Ak NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
decreases NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
health NN O O
state NN O O
for NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
9.2 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
quetiapine NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
health NN O O
state NN O O
analysis NN O O
can NN O O
provide NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
clinical NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
mere NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
average NN O O
scores NN O O
and NN O O
largely NN O O
confirmed NN O O
original NN O O
CATIE NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25304947)

Secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
RTOG NN O O
9508 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
whole-brain NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
WBRT NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
stereotactic NN O I-INT
radiosurgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
1-3 NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
poststratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
graded NN O I-PAR
prognostic NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GPA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Radiation NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
Oncology NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTOG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
9508 NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
metastasis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
whole-brain NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WBRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stereotactic NN O I-INT
radiosurgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SRS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
WBRT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
improved NN O O
prognostic NN O O
index NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
graded NN O O
prognostic NN O O
assessment NN O O
( NN O O
GPA NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
RTOG NN O I-INT
9508 NN O I-INT
were NN O O
poststratified NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
GPA NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
conclusions NN O O
may NN O O
vary NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
252 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
331 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
GPA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
211 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
because NN O O
the NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O O
GPA NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RTOG NN O O
database NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
survival NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
GPA NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
comparisons NN O O
within NN O O
subgroups NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
free NN O O
online NN O O
tool NN O O
( NN O O
brainmetgpa.com NN O O
) NN O O
simplified NN O O
GPA NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
fundamental NN O O
conclusions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
analysis NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
overall NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
metastases NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
GPA NN O O
3.5 NN O O
to NN O O
4.0 NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
survival NN O O
time NN O O
[ NN O O
MST NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
WBRT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
SRS NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
WBRT NN O O
alone NN O O
was NN O O
21.0 NN O O
versus NN O O
10.3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
P=.05 NN O O
) NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
GPA NN O O
3.5 NN O O
to NN O O
4.0 NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
WBRT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SRS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
MST NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
versus NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
metastases NN O O
was NN O O
21 NN O O
and NN O O
14.1 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
predominantly NN O O
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
shows NN O O
no NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
overall NN O O
when NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
WBRT NN O O
and NN O O
SRS NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
GPA NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
3.5-4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O O
advantage NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
have NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
BM NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
benefit NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
extend NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
GPA NN O O
. NN O O

Prospective NN O O
validation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
survival NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
BM NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
GPA NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
WBRT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SRS NN O I-INT
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25311217)

Intense NN O I-PAR
androgen-deprivation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
abiraterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
neoadjuvant NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Cure NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
localized NN O O
high-risk NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancers NN O O
( NN O O
PCa NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
intermediate-risk NN O O
PCa NN O O
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
suboptimal NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
concomitant NN O O
androgen-deprivation NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
ADT NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
by NN O O
concomitant NN O O
ADT NN O O
with NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Luteinizing NN O O
hormone-releasing NN O O
hormone NN O O
agonist NN O O
( NN O O
LHRHa NN O O
; NN O O
leuprolide NN O O
acetate NN O O
) NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
androgens NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
effectively NN O O
as NN O O
abiraterone NN O O
acetate NN O O
( NN O O
AA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
prodrug NN O O
of NN O O
abiraterone NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
CYP17 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
that NN O O
lowers NN O O
serum NN O O
testosterone NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
ng/dL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
improves NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
metastatic NN O O
PCa NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
greater NN O O
androgen NN O O
suppression NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
localized NN O O
high-risk NN O O
PCa NN O O
will NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
makes NN O O
paramount NN O O
the NN O O
reassessment NN O O
of NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
ADT NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
robust NN O O
androgen NN O O
suppression NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O I-PAR
AND NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
neoadjuvant NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
LHRHa NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
AA NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
PCa NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
LHRHa NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
LHRHa NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
AA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
LHRHa NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
AA NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
prostatectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intraprostatic NN O I-OUT
androgens NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
12-week NN O O
prostate NN O O
biopsies NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
dihydrotestosterone/testosterone NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
dehydroepiandrosterone NN O O
, NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
-androstene-3,17-dione NN O O
, NN O O
dihydrotestosterone NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
; NN O O
testosterone NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
LHRHa NN O O
plus NN O O
AA NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
LHRHa NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Prostatectomy NN O O
pathologic NN O O
staging NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
minimal NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
residual NN O O
T3- NN O O
or NN O O
lymph NN O O
node-positive NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
LHRHa NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
AA NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
suppresses NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
androgens NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
than NN O I-INT
LHRHa NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intensive NN O O
intratumoral NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
LHRHa NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
AA NN O I-INT
before NN O O
prostatectomy NN O O
for NN O O
localized NN O O
high-risk NN O O
PCa NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
tumor NN O O
burden NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25359159)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
glargine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
liraglutide NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
glargine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
liraglutide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multinational NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
trial NN O O
included NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
sulphonylurea NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
had NN O I-PAR
glycated NN O I-PAR
haemoglobin NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HbA1c NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
7.5-12 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
glargine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
to NN O O
target NN O O
fasting NN O O
plasma NN O O
glucose NN O O
of NN O O
4.0-5.5 NN O O
mmol/L NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
liraglutide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
escalated NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
approved NN O O
clinical NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
1.8 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
powered NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O I-INT
glargine NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
liraglutide NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
percentage NN O I-INT
of NN O O
people NN O O
reaching NN O O
HbA1c NN O O
< NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
deviation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
s.d NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
31.9 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4.2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
HbA1c NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
9.0 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1.1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Equal NN O I-PAR
numbers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
489 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
glargine NN O O
and NN O O
liraglutide NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Similar NN O I-PAR
numbers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
attained NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
( NN O O
48.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
45.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
glargine NN O O
over NN O O
liraglutide NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.44 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glargine NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
greater NN O O
reductions NN O O
of NN O O
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
-1.94 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-1.79 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
6.2 NN O O
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
7.9 NN O O
( NN O O
2.2 NN O O
) NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
] NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
liraglutide NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
liraglutide NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
treatment-emergent NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
s.d NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
+2.0 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.0 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
for NN O O
glargine NN O O
and NN O O
-3.0 NN O O
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
for NN O O
liraglutide NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Symptomatic NN O I-OUT
hypoglycaemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
glargine NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
liraglutide NN O O
arm NN O O
withdrew NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Adding NN O O
either NN O O
insulin NN O O
glargine NN O O
or NN O O
liraglutide NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O O
controlled NN O O
T2DM NN O O
reduces NN O O
HbA1c NN O O
substantially NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
nearly NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
reaching NN O O
target NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25441055)

Does NN O O
cognition NN O O
predict NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
remission NN O O
in NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
late-life NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
identify NN O O
cognitive NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
geriatric NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Older NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
measures NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
executive NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
post-treatment NN O I-PAR
Hamilton NN O I-PAR
Depression NN O I-PAR
Scales NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HAM-D NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-week NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
psychotherapies NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
problem-solving NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
cognitive NN O O
predictors NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
treatment NN O O
responders NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
HAM-D NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
?50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
remitters NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
HAM-D NN O O
score NN O O
?10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Empirically NN O O
derived NN O O
decision NN O O
trees NN O O
identified NN O O
poorer NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
switching NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
Trails NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
cut-score NN O O
of NN O O
?82 NN O O
predicting NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
responders NN O I-INT
. NN O O

No NN O O
other NN O O
cognitive NN O O
or NN O O
health NN O O
variables NN O O
predicted NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O O
trees NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Psychotherapies NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
or NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
skill NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
switching NN O O
may NN O O
augment NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
exhibiting NN O I-PAR
executive NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
If NN O I-OUT
replicated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
Trails NN O O
B NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
cognitive NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision-making NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
geriatric NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25449737)

Selective NN O O
attention NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
early NN O O
integration NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
signals NN O O
: NN O O
same NN O O
timing NN O O
, NN O O
modulated NN O O
neural NN O O
sources NN O O
. NN O O

Humans NN O I-PAR
combine NN O I-PAR
co-emitted NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
signals NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
predict NN O O
other NN O O
's NN O O
immediate NN O O
intentions NN O O
and NN O O
prepare NN O O
an NN O O
adapted NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
whether NN O O
attending NN O O
to NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
co-emitted NN O O
social NN O O
signals NN O O
impacts NN O O
on NN O O
its NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
signals NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
electroencephalography NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
address NN O O
selective NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
early NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
signals NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
manipulated NN O O
three NN O O
visual NN O O
cues NN O O
: NN O O
gaze NN O O
direction NN O O
, NN O O
emotional NN O O
expression NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pointing NN O O
gesture NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
either NN O O
emotion NN O O
or NN O O
gaze NN O O
direction NN O O
judgments NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
temporal NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
cues NN O O
integration NN O O
emerges NN O O
170ms NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
stimulus NN O O
onset NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
integration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
visual NN O O
cues NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
the NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
feature NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
task NN O O
relevant NN O O
. NN O O

Yet NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
common NN O O
temporal NN O O
regions NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
neural NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
integration NN O O
changed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
attended NN O O
feature NN O O
: NN O O
integration NN O O
during NN O O
emotion NN O O
judgments NN O O
was NN O O
mainly NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
classic NN O O
limbic NN O O
areas NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dorsal NN O O
pathway NN O O
during NN O O
gaze NN O O
direction NN O O
judgments NN O O
. NN O O

Together NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
co-emitted NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
cues NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
integrated NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
long NN O O
as NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
observer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
irrelevant NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ongoing NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25451017)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
brain NN O O
serotonin NN O O
level NN O O
is NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Buspirone NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
5-HT NN O O
( NN O O
1A NN O O
) NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
with NN O O
antiaggressive NN O O
effects NN O O
increasing NN O O
prosocial NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
took NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
during NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Checklist-Community NN O O
Rating NN O O
Scale NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
buspirone NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O O
was NN O O
6.7 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
2.7 NN O O
) NN O O
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
buspirone NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
declined NN O O
from NN O O
25.7 NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
5.7 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
16.3 NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
8.5 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
declined NN O O
from NN O O
24.7 NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
7.6 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
18.2 NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
7.7 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Cohen NN O O
d NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
was NN O O
.45 NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O O
( NN O O
81.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
buspirone NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
38.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
?30 NN O O
% NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
2.1 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
buspirone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
were NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
supports NN O O
that NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
buspirone NN O O
plus NN O O
risperidone NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
risperidone NN O O
plus NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25528326)

Diet-Related NN O O
Colorectal NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Beliefs NN O O
and NN O O
Dietary NN O I-INT
Intakes NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
Urban NN O I-PAR
Minority NN O I-PAR
Population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
CRC NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
leading NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
cancer-related NN O O
death NN O O
and NN O O
third NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
cancer NN O O
among NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
diet-related NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
an NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
Black NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
169 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
More NN O O
than NN O O
two-thirds NN O O
reported NN O O
diet-related NN O O
CRC NN O O
prevention NN O O
beliefs NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
with NN O O
diet-related NN O I-INT
CRC NN O O
prevention NN O O
beliefs NN O O
had NN O O
healthier NN O O
intakes NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
fiber NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fruit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vegetable NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bean NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.027 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
red NN O I-OUT
meat NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.032 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vitamin NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.039 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.045 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
people NN O O
may NN O O
already NN O O
have NN O O
diet-related NN O I-INT
CRC NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
beliefs NN O I-INT
and NN O O
having NN O O
them NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
healthful NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25542917)

Relationships NN O O
of NN O O
PROP NN O O
Taste NN O O
Phenotype NN O O
, NN O O
Taste NN O O
Receptor NN O O
Genotype NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Oral NN O O
Nicotine NN O O
Replacement NN O O
Use NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Recommended NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
nicotine NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
NRT NN O O
) NN O O
product NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
not NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
attempts NN O O
. NN O O

n-6-propylthiouracil NN O O
( NN O O
PROP NN O O
) NN O O
bitter NN O O
taste NN O O
phenotype NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
non-adherence NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
NRT NN O O
products NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
bitter NN O O
taste NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
literature NN O O
on NN O O
this NN O O
phenotype NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
NRT NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
PROP NN O O
taste NN O O
phenotype NN O O
with NN O O
NRT NN O O
usage NN O O
and NN O O
sensory NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
products NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
cross-over NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
supply NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
inhalers NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
lozenges NN O I-INT
with NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Mixed NN O O
effects NN O O
linear NN O O
model NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
PROP NN O O
taste NN O O
phenotype NN O O
and NN O O
taste NN O O
receptor NN O O
genotype NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
NRT NN O O
usage NN O O
or NN O O
sensory NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
NRT NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
PROP NN O O
non-tasters NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lozenges NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
continuous NN O O
exposure NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
nicotine NN O O
cartridges NN O O
( NN O O
intermittent NN O O
exposure NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Unexpectedly NN O O
, NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
PROP NN O O
non-tasters NN O O
shifted NN O O
to NN O O
taster NN O O
phenotype NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
or NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

Menthol NN O I-PAR
cigarette NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
identified NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
NRT NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
nonmenthol NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Taste NN O O
receptor NN O O
genotype NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
PROP NN O O
taste NN O O
phenotype NN O O
( NN O O
Kendall NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
.591 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
PROP NN O O
phenotype NN O O
and NN O O
NRT NN O O
usage NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
NRT NN O O
under-dosing NN O O
and NN O O
limited NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

PROP NN O O
non-tasters NN O O
' NN O O
greater NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
lozenges NN O O
is NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
nicotine NN O O
exposure NN O O
being NN O O
less NN O O
aversive NN O O
to NN O O
non-tasters NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
research NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
factors NN O O
impacting NN O O
NRT NN O O
usage NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
effectively NN O O
inform NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25560349)

Aloe NN O I-INT
vera NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cesarean NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Failure NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
wound NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
probable NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
cesarean NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
dressing NN O O
with NN O O
aloe NN O I-INT
vera NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cesarean NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
cesarean NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Amir-al-Momenin NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Gerash NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Iran NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
containing NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
wound NN O O
was NN O O
dressed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
aloe NN O I-INT
vera NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
dressing NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
cesarean NN O O
operation NN O O
using NN O O
REEDA NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
through NN O O
Chi-square NN O O
and NN O O
t-test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
27.56?4.20 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
aloe NN O I-PAR
vera NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
26.62?4.88 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
concerning NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.283 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aloe NN O O
vera NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
ones NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
obtained NN O O
a NN O O
zero NN O O
score NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
respectively NN O O
obtained NN O O
as NN O O
42 NN O O
and NN O O
41eight NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
informed NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dressing NN O O
with NN O I-INT
aloe NN O I-INT
vera NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25568383)

Inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
anti-phospholipase NN O I-INT
A2 NN O I-INT
antibody NN O I-INT
to NN O O
backgrounding NN O O
diets NN O O
on NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
feed NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
fermentation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
acute-phase NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
growing NN O I-OUT
beef NN O I-OUT
calves NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Exp NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
, NN O O
individual NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
daily NN O O
DMI NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
70 NN O I-PAR
crossbred NN O I-PAR
weaned NN O I-PAR
calves NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
70-d NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
GrowSafe NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GrowSafe NN O I-PAR
Systems NN O I-PAR
Ltd. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
Airdrie NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
AB NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Education NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
Feed NN O I-PAR
Efficiency NN O I-PAR
Facility NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FEF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Calves NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
fed NN O O
a NN O O
low-concentrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
growing NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
blocked NN O O
by NN O O
weight NN O O
and NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
pens NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CON NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
anti-phospholipase NN O I-INT
A2 NN O I-INT
antibody NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
aPLA2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O O
an NN O O
inclusion NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
DM NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
70-d NN O O
feed NN O O
efficiency NN O O
( NN O O
FE NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
calves NN O O
were NN O O
loaded NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
commercial NN O O
livestock NN O O
trailer NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
driven NN O O
for NN O O
approximately NN O O
1,600 NN O O
km NN O O
during NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
Upon NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
FEF NN O O
( NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
calves NN O O
were NN O O
relocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
pens NN O O
and NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
diets NN O O
and NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
d. NN O O
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
calf NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
on NN O O
d NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
transportation NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
ceruloplasmin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
haptoglobin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
initial NN O O
BW NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
242.0 NN O O
? NN O O
3.7 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.92 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
BW NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
d NN O O
70 NN O O
( NN O O
313.0 NN O O
? NN O O
4.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.79 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
ADG NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1.01 NN O O
? NN O O
0.02 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.95 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
DMI NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
CON NN O O
( NN O O
9.18 NN O O
? NN O O
0.15 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
aPLA2 NN O O
( NN O O
8.53 NN O O
? NN O O
0.15 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
feed NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
CON NN O O
( NN O O
0.389 NN O O
? NN O O
0.110 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
aPLA2 NN O O
calves NN O O
( NN O O
-0.272 NN O O
? NN O O
0.110 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
transportation NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
BW NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
transportation NN O I-OUT
shrink NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26.0 NN O O
? NN O O
0.6 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.86 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
BW NN O O
at NN O O
d NN O O
28 NN O O
( NN O O
339.0 NN O O
? NN O O
4.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.72 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ADG NN O O
( NN O O
1.28 NN O O
? NN O O
0.03 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.72 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
G NN O O
: NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
0.164 NN O O
? NN O O
0.004 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.83 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
haptoglobin NN O O
( NN O O
0.08 NN O O
? NN O O
0.02 NN O O
mg/mL NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.41 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
ceruloplasmin NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
CON NN O O
calves NN O O
( NN O O
14.3 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
aPLA2 NN O O
calves NN O O
( NN O O
13.0 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Exp NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
aPLA2 NN O I-OUT
inclusion NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
LC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-concentrate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
substrates NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
fermentation NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Addition NN O O
of NN O O
aPLA2 NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
fermentation NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HC NN O I-OUT
substrates NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
aPLA2 NN O I-INT
improved NN O I-INT
FE NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
growing NN O O
beef NN O O
calves NN O O
when NN O O
fed NN O O
LC NN O O
diets NN O O
in NN O O
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
aPLA2 NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
fermentation NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HC NN O I-OUT
substrates NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
calves NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
aPLA2 NN O O
had NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
ceruloplasmin NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
transportation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25640884)

Reducing NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
disparities NN O O
in NN O O
medicare NN O O
beneficiaries NN O O
through NN O O
cancer NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
navigation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Significant NN O O
racial NN O O
disparities NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
Medicare NN O I-PAR
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
lay NN O I-INT
navigators NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
managers NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
increase NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
Asian NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Pacific NN O I-PAR
Islander NN O I-PAR
Medicare NN O I-PAR
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
Moloka'i NN O I-PAR
General NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
island NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Moloka'i NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Hawai'i NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Prevention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
Demonstration NN O I-PAR
sponsored NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Centers NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Medicare NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Medicaid NN O I-PAR
Services NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
488 NN O I-PAR
Medicare NN O I-PAR
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Hawaiian NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Filipino NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
navigator NN O I-INT
help NN O I-INT
them NN O I-INT
access NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
242 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
246 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Self-reported NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exit NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
using NN O O
chi-square NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
study NN O O
exit NN O O
, NN O O
57.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
36.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
had NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
Papanicolaou NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
61.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
42.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
had NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mammogram NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
54.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
36.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
had NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
prostate-specific NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
43.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
sexes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
27.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
had NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
flexible NN O I-OUT
sigmoidoscopy NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
colonoscopy NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
navigation NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
can NN O O
increase NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Medicare NN O O
beneficiaries NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
disparities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25643864)

Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
of NN O O
Mind NN O I-INT
Reading NN O I-INT
and NN O O
In NN O I-INT
Vivo NN O I-INT
Rehearsal NN O I-INT
for NN O O
High-Functioning NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
computer NN O I-INT
software NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i.e. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Mind NN O I-INT
Reading NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vivo NN O I-INT
rehearsal NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
decoding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
encoding NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
43 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
7-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HFASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
manualized NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
analyses NN O O
indicated NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
posttest NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
decoding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
encoding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
these NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
5-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
measures NN O O
; NN O O
specifically NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
posttest NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25644279)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
interferon- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ribavirin-free NN O I-INT
ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment-experienced NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
virus-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Approximately NN O O
2 NN O O
million NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
infected NN O O
with NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
virus NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
, NN O O
end-stage NN O O
liver NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hepatocellular NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/ribavirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RBV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
failed NN O O
remain NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
options NN O O
are NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
an NN O O
IFN- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
RBV-free NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
once-daily NN O O
ombitasvir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABT-267 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
NS5A NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
paritaprevir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABT-450 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
NS3/4A NN O I-INT
protease NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
dosed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ritonavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
paritaprevir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
pegylated NN O I-PAR
IFN/RBV NN O I-INT
treatment-experienced NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
subtype NN O I-PAR
1b NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
subtype NN O I-PAR
1b NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
ombitasvir NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
paritaprevir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
100/100 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
150/100 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
or NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
ombitasvir NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
paritaprevir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
100/100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
150/100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sustained NN O I-OUT
virologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
( NN O O
SVR24 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
?1 NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
subtype NN O O
1b NN O O
cohort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SVR24 NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
high NN O O
( NN O O
88.9 NN O O
% NN O O
-100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
paritaprevir NN O O
dose NN O O
or NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
genotype NN O O
2 NN O O
cohort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SVR24 NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
57.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
72.2 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
paritaprevir NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
SVR24 NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
subtype NN O O
2a NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
2b NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Concordance NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
SVR12 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SVR24 NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
100 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
overall NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
nasopharyngitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
29 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O I-PAR
difficult-to-treat NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
pegylated NN O I-PAR
IFN/RBV NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O I-INT
potent NN O O
antiviral NN O O
activity NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
1b NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
2a NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2564725)

Esmolol NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
ultrashort-acting NN O O
beta NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
parallel NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
new NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rapid NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Drug NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
conversion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
with NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
from NN O O
139 NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
beats/min NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
from NN O O
142 NN O O
to NN O O
97 NN O O
beats/min NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
esmolol-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
with NN O O
new NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
converted NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
converted NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mild NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Esmolol NN O I-INT
compares NN O O
favorably NN O O
with NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acutely NN O I-OUT
decreasing NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
or NN O O
flutter NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
conversion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
with NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25648577)

Baseline NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
quality NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Preserved NN O O
Cardiac NN O O
Function NN O O
Heart NN O O
Failure NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
Aldosterone NN O O
Antagonist NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
preserved NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
elucidated NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preserved NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
it NN O O
relates NN O O
to NN O O
impaired NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
( NN O O
QOL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
identify NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
QOL NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
QOL NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Preserved NN O I-PAR
Cardiac NN O I-PAR
Function NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Failure NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
Aldosterone NN O I-INT
Antagonist NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TOPCAT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
3400 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Kansas NN O I-OUT
City NN O I-OUT
Cardiomyopathy NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
3395 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
5D NN O I-OUT
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analog NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1431 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Patient NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire-9 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O O
summary NN O O
score NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Kansas NN O I-OUT
City NN O I-OUT
Cardiomyopathy NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
54.8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
European NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
5D NN O I-OUT
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analog NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
60.3 NN O O
; NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

Factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O O
Kansas NN O I-OUT
City NN O I-OUT
Cardiomyopathy NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
European NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
5D NN O I-OUT
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analog NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
via NN O O
multiple NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
were NN O O
American NN O O
region NN O O
, NN O O
older NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
angina NN O O
pectoris NN O O
or NN O O
asthma NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
hypoglycemic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
activity NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
New NN O O
York NN O O
Heart NN O O
Association NN O O
class NN O O
. NN O O

Factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
depression NN O O
via NN O O
multiple NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
included NN O O
younger NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
female NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
comorbid NN O O
angina NN O O
, NN O O
chronic NN O O
obstructive NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
hypoglycemic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O O
activity NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
New NN O O
York NN O O
Heart NN O O
Association NN O O
class NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O O
reuptake NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preserved NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lived NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Europe NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
hypoglycemic NN O I-PAR
agents NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
impaired NN O I-PAR
QOL NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
URL NN O O
: NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
. NN O O

Unique NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00094302 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25656334)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
guided NN O I-INT
self-help NN O I-INT
for NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
experience NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caring NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
carers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
self-help NN O I-INT
manual NN O I-INT
for NN O O
enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
experience NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caregiving NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
carers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
markedly NN O O
in NN O O
Thailand NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
While NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
give NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
receive NN O O
little NN O O
support NN O O
from NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
services NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
critical NN O O
role NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Carers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
guided NN O I-INT
self-help NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Experience NN O O
of NN O O
Caregiving NN O I-INT
Inventory NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
doubly NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
anova NN O O
) NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
between-group NN O O
and NN O O
within-group NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
. NN O O

Fieldwork NN O O
was NN O O
from NN O O
October NN O O
2007-May NN O O
2008 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-four NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
undertaken NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
showed NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caring NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
recipients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
manual NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
one-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caring NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
these NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
at NN O O
one-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Guided NN O I-INT
self-help NN O I-INT
strengthen NN O O
carers NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
positive NN O O
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
their NN O O
negative NN O O
, NN O O
experience NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caring NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
limited NN O O
evidence NN O O
base NN O O
about NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
developing NN O O
country NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
Thailand NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25659440)

Reducing NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
simultaneous NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
combined NN O O
intravenous-intra-articular NN O O
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
asked NN O O
whether NN O O
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TXA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
simultaneous NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TKA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
TXA NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
TKA NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
TXA NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
inflation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
tourniquet NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
intra-articular NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
grams NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
deflation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
tourniquet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/h NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3h NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
completion NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
measured NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drained NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
12h NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfused NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
allogenic NN O I-OUT
BT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O O
postoperative NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drained NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
TXA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500.00 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
900.00 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
( NN O O
-525.00 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
-300.00 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
TXA NN O O
( NN O O
2.10 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
3.10 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
( NN O O
-1.60 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
-0.60 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
BT NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
TXA NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
allogeneic NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
packed NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
transfused NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TXA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.109 NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
( NN O O
0.101 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
0.117 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
during NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
bilateral NN O O
TKA NN O O
, NN O O
TXA NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
negligible NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25691677)

Final NN O O
Report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Combined NN O I-INT
Androgen-Deprivation NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
Radiotherapy NN O I-INT
Versus NN O I-INT
Androgen-Deprivation NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
Alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Locally NN O O
Advanced NN O O
Prostate NN O O
Cancer NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
have NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
androgen-deprivation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ADT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
prespecified NN O O
final NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
NCIC NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Trials NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
PR.3/Medical NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Council NN O I-PAR
PR07/Intergroup NN O I-PAR
T94-0110 NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T3-4 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
N0/Nx NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
M0 NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
T1-2 NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
prostate-specific NN O I-PAR
antigen NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
?g/L NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
PSA NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
?g/L NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-PAR
Gleason NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
lifelong NN O I-INT
ADT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
ADT+RT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
was NN O O
64 NN O O
to NN O O
69 NN O O
Gy NN O O
in NN O O
35 NN O O
to NN O O
39 NN O O
fractions NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
and NN O O
pelvis NN O O
or NN O O
prostate NN O O
alone NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
stratified NN O O
for NN O O
prespecified NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
thousand NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
between NN O O
1995 NN O O
and NN O O
2005 NN O O
, NN O O
602 NN O O
to NN O O
ADT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
603 NN O O
to NN O O
ADT+RT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
465 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
199 NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
ADT+RT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.70 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.57 NN O O
to NN O O
0.85 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Deaths NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ADT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.46 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.34 NN O O
to NN O O
0.61 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
on NN O O
ADT+RT NN O I-INT
reported NN O I-INT
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
only NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
589 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
24 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
firmly NN O O
establishes NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25744288)

Enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
experience NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
exploratory NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
impact NN O O
, NN O O
acceptability NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
co-designed NN O O
by NN O O
carers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Supporting NN O O
someone NN O O
through NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
emotionally NN O O
and NN O O
physically NN O O
demanding NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
yet NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
support NN O O
carers NN O O
require NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
this NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
carers NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
co-designed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
starting NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-INT
was NN O O
completed NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
measuring NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
its NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
outpatient NN O O
services NN O O
, NN O O
coping NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
wellbeing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
process NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
carers NN O O
and NN O O
healthcare NN O O
professionals NN O O
( NN O O
HCPs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
focus NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Recruitment NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
unproblematic NN O O
and NN O O
attrition NN O O
from NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
processes NN O O
were NN O O
acceptable NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
carers NN O O
. NN O O

Carers NN O O
in NN O O
receipt NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
'Take NN O O
Care NN O O
' NN O O
intervention NN O O
reported NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
information NN O O
needs NN O O
being NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
met NN O O
than NN O O
carers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Confidence NN O O
in NN O O
coping NN O O
improved NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
declined NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
although NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
insufficient NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
' NN O O
emotional NN O O
wellbeing NN O O
. NN O O

HCP NN O O
and NN O O
carer NN O O
focus NN O O
groups NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
'Take NN O O
Care NN O O
' NN O O
intervention NN O O
proved NN O O
acceptable NN O O
to NN O O
carers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
HCPs NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
considerable NN O O
promise NN O O
and NN O O
utility NN O O
in NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
conduct NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fully NN O O
powered NN O O
RCT NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
's NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2577555)

[ NN O O
European NN O O
topic NN O O
: NN O O
liver NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
regional NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
regional NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
are NN O O
exemplified NN O O
by NN O O
657 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
I NN O O
. NN O O

Adjuvant NN O I-INT
portal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
colorectal NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
malignancy NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
advantageous NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

II NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
unresolved NN O O
whether NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
prolonged NN O O
by NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
liver NN O O
following NN O O
curative NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
colorectal NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
metastases NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
III NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FUDR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pump NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
17 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
palliative NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
unresectable NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
IV NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
non-resectable NN O O
liver NN O O
malignancies NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
results NN O O
after NN O O
chemoembolisation NN O O
( NN O O
Frankfurt NN O O
method NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25801501)

The NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Subjective NN O O
Response NN O O
to NN O O
Methamphetamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Sample NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
Double-Blind NN O O
, NN O O
Placebo-Controlled NN O O
Laboratory NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

Methamphetamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
MA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
serious NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
condition NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
FDA-approved NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
NTX NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
opioid NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
with NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
albeit NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
alcoholism NN O O
and NN O O
opioid NN O O
dependence NN O O
. NN O O

Preclinical NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
NTX NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
MA NN O O
use NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
inform NN O O
treatment NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
human NN O O
laboratory NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
NTX NN O O
. NN O O

Non-treatment-seeking NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
MA NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=30 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
separate NN O I-PAR
5-day NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
stays NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
each NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
completed NN O O
testing NN O O
sessions NN O O
comprised NN O O
of NN O O
MA NN O I-INT
cue-reactivity NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
MA NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
NTX NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
that NN O O
NTX NN O O
would NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
attenuate NN O O
cue-induced NN O O
MA NN O O
craving NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
reduce NN O O
subjective NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
MA NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
largely NN O O
supported NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
such NN O O
that NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
NTX NN O O
significantly NN O O
blunted NN O O
cue-induced NN O O
craving NN O O
for NN O O
MA NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
attenuated NN O O
several NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hedonic NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
MA NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
craving NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
controlled NN O O
MA NN O O
administration NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
NTX NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
'crave NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
'stimulated NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
'would NN O I-OUT
like NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
access NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
the NN O O
post-MA NN O O
administration NN O O
timecourse NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
'anxious NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
'bad NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O I-INT
findings NN O O
support NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
by NN O O
showing NN O O
that NN O O
NTX NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
cue-induced NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
MA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
is NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
positive NN O O
treatment NN O O
studies NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
NTX NN O I-INT
for NN O O
amphetamine NN O I-INT
dependence NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
ongoing NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
for NN O O
MA NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25887586)

Femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
osteotomy NN O O
guide NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Total NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
THA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
last-resort NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
hip NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
complain NN O O
of NN O O
discrepancies NN O O
in NN O O
leg NN O O
length NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
introduces NN O O
a NN O O
device NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
precision NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
osteotomy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
discrepancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
THA NN O I-INT
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
osteotomy NN O I-INT
guide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
operations NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
posterolateral NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O I-OUT
plan NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
removed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.84 NN O O
mm NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
osteotomy NN O O
guide NN O O
and NN O O
1.69 NN O O
mm NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
guide NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Discrepancies NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
5.45 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
13.37 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
guide NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
neck NN O I-INT
osteotomy NN O I-INT
guide NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
an NN O O
effectively NN O O
auxiliary NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
posterolateral NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O I-PAR
REGISTRATION NN O O
ChiCTR-OOC-15005904 NN O O
; NN O O
date NN O O
: NN O O
2015-01-30 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25893544)

Icosapent NN O I-INT
Ethyl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
Acid NN O I-INT
Ethyl NN O I-INT
Ester NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Effects NN O O
Upon NN O O
High-Sensitivity NN O O
C-Reactive NN O O
Protein NN O O
and NN O O
Lipid NN O O
Parameters NN O O
in NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Metabolic NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
icosapent NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
IPE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
high-sensitivity NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
hsCRP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
parameters NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
evaluated NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IPE NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-PAR
grams/day NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IPE NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
grams/day NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
entitled NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
MARINE NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
triglyceride NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
?500 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
?2000 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ANCHOR NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
TG NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
?200 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
500 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
low-density NN O I-PAR
lipoprotein NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LDL-C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
MARINE NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=204 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ANCHOR NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=645 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
the NN O O
approved NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
grams/day NN O O
, NN O O
IPE NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
lowered NN O I-OUT
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
40.0 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0007 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
MARINE NN O O
and NN O O
23.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
ANCHOR NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
MARINE NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
included NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
statin NN O O
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
IPE NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
grams/day NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
78.0 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
in NN O O
statin-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0035 NN O O
, NN O O
n=16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
MARINE NN O O
, NN O O
IPE NN O O
4 NN O O
grams/day NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
35.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
non-high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
non-HDL-C NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
19.9 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ApoB NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0015 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
raising NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
ANCHOR NN O O
, NN O O
IPE NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
grams/day NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
21.7 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
non-HDL-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ApoB NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
8.8 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5.2 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0236 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4.0 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0053 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
IPE NN O O
4 NN O O
grams/day NN O O
significantly NN O O
lowered NN O O
hsCRP NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
lipids NN O O
without NN O O
raising NN O O
LDL-C NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?200 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
500 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?500 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
?2000 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
TG NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25910710)

Investigating NN O O
a NN O O
Multimodal NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Limited NN O I-PAR
Expressive NN O I-PAR
Vocabularies NN O I-PAR
Associated NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
intervention NN O O
package NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
increasing NN O O
expressive NN O O
word NN O O
learning NN O O
by NN O O
school-age NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
expressive NN O I-PAR
vocabularies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
proof NN O O
of NN O O
concept NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
educational NN O I-PAR
diagnoses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
expressive NN O I-PAR
vocabularies NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
outset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
multimodal NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
composed NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
sound NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
augmentative NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
alternative NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O O
individualized NN O O
vocabulary NN O O
words NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
selected NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
speech NN O O
sound NN O O
repertoires NN O O
and NN O O
principles NN O O
of NN O O
phonotactic NN O O
probability NN O O
and NN O O
neighborhood NN O O
density NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multiple-probe NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
learning NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Five NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
spoken-word NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
across NN O I-OUT
successive NN O I-OUT
word NN O I-OUT
sets NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
high NN O O
responders NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
learning NN O O
criteria NN O O
( NN O O
low NN O O
responders NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comparisons NN O O
of NN O O
behaviors NN O O
measured NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
high NN O O
responders NN O O
had NN O O
relatively NN O O
higher NN O O
skills NN O O
in NN O O
receptive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prelinguistic NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vocal/verbal NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
consonant NN O I-OUT
productions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
holds NN O O
promise NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
spoken NN O O
word NN O O
productions NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
expressive NN O I-PAR
vocabularies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
describe NN O O
who NN O O
may NN O O
most NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
investigate NN O O
generalized NN O O
benefits NN O O
to NN O O
untaught NN O O
contexts NN O O
and NN O O
targets NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25934164)

Three-year NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
52-mg NN O O
levonorgestrel-releasing NN O I-INT
intrauterine NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
3-year NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
52-mg NN O O
levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
intrauterine NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LNG20 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Nulliparous NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
parous NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
16-45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
regular NN O I-PAR
menstrual NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
requesting NN O I-PAR
contraception NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
partially NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
LNG20 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
women NN O O
aged NN O O
16-35 NN O O
years NN O O
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
Pearl NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
36-45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
LNG20 NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
safety NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
participants NN O O
had NN O O
in-person NN O O
or NN O O
phone NN O O
follow-up NN O O
approximately NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1600 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
16-35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
151 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
36-45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
LNG20 NN O I-OUT
placement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
1011 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
57.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
nulliparous NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
438 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Successful NN O I-PAR
placement NN O I-PAR
occurred NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
1714 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
97.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Six NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
ectopic NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
Pearl NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
LNG20 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.15 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.02-0.55 NN O O
) NN O O
through NN O O
Year NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
0.26 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.10-0.57 NN O O
) NN O O
through NN O O
Year NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.22 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.08-0.49 NN O O
) NN O O
through NN O O
Year NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
life-table NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.55 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.24-1.23 NN O O
) NN O O
through NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Expulsion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
62 NN O O
( NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
[ NN O O
80.6 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
discontinued NN O I-PAR
LNG20 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
desired NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
86.8 NN O O
% NN O O
conceived NN O I-OUT
spontaneously NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Pelvic NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
0.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Only NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
LNG20 NN O I-INT
users NN O O
discontinued NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
LNG20 NN O I-INT
intrauterine NN O O
system NN O O
is NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
nulliparous NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
parous NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
STATEMENT NN O O
A NN O O
new NN O O
52-mg NN O O
levonorgestrel-releasing NN O I-INT
intrauterine NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
nulliparous NN O O
and NN O O
parous NN O O
women NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25957107)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herbal NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
60-day NN O O
head-down NN O O
bed NN O O
rest NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herbal NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
countermeasure NN O O
against NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
lifestyle NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herb NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Taikong NN O I-INT
Yangxin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
micro- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
macrovascular NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
60-day NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
herbal NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
60-day NN O I-INT
bed NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
macrovasculature NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
sonography NN O O
. NN O O

Skin NN O I-OUT
microvascular NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
laser NN O O
Doppler NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
microparticles NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EMPs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Bed NN O O
rest NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endothelium-dependent NN O I-OUT
vasodilation NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ACh NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unmodified NN O O
by NN O O
bed NN O O
rest NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
twofold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
EMPs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
Taikong NN O I-INT
Yangxin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
amplified NN O O
by NN O O
2.5-fold NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bed NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
prevented NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
Taikong NN O O
Yangxin NN O O
ameliorates NN O O
endothelium-dependent NN O I-OUT
vasodilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
likely NN O O
by NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
NO NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
Taikong NN O O
Yangxin NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
countermeasure NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
physical NN O O
inactivity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26100611)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
parental NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
trauma-focused NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
interparental NN O I-PAR
violence NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Interparental NN O O
violence NN O O
is NN O O
both NN O O
common NN O O
and NN O O
harmful NN O O
and NN O O
impacts NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
lives NN O O
directly NN O O
and NN O O
indirectly NN O O
. NN O O

Direct NN O O
effects NN O O
refer NN O O
to NN O O
affective NN O O
, NN O O
behavioral NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
interparental NN O O
violence NN O O
and NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
adjustment NN O O
. NN O O

Indirect NN O O
effects NN O O
refer NN O O
to NN O O
deteriorated NN O O
parental NN O O
availability NN O O
and NN O O
parent-child NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

Standard NN O O
Trauma NN O I-INT
Focused NN O I-INT
Cognitive NN O I-INT
Behavioral NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
insufficient NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
traumatized NN O O
by NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
interparental NN O O
violence NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
pervasive NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
interparental NN O O
violence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
family NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

HORIZON NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
trauma NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
based NN O O
group NN O O
program NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
added NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
preparatory NN O I-INT
parenting NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
improving NN O O
parental NN O O
availability NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
added NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
parent-child NN O O
sessions NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
parent-child NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
multi-informant NN O O
and NN O O
multi-method NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
interparental NN O I-PAR
violence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
main NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
parental NN O I-PAR
components NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
trauma NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
reducing NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
posttraumatic NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
internalizing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
externalizing NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
added NN O O
components NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
adjustment NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
enhanced NN O O
effects NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
towards NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O O
violence NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
availability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parent-child NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O I-OUT
address NN O O
this NN O O
secondary NN O O
aim NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
parameters NN O O
are NN O O
observational NN O O
and NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
availability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parent-child NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
adjustment NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
interparental NN O O
violence NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
are NN O O
collected NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
: NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
and NN O O
completer NN O O
analyses NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
done NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
enhance NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-INT
interparental NN O I-INT
violence-related NN O I-INT
parental NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
trauma NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
children NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
IPV NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
will NN O O
illuminate NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
change NN O O
by NN O O
considering NN O O
multiple NN O O
dimensions NN O O
of NN O O
child NN O O
responses NN O O
, NN O O
parenting NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
identify NN O O
selection NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Netherlands NN O O
Trial NN O O
Register NN O O
NTR4015 NN O O
. NN O O

Registered NN O O
4th NN O O
of NN O O
June NN O O
, NN O O
2013 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26109247)

A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
to NN O O
Improve NN O O
Social NN O O
Skills NN O O
in NN O O
Young NN O I-PAR
Adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
UCLA NN O I-INT
PEERS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Research NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
impaired NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
significant NN O O
challenge NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
few NN O O
evidence-based NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O O
exist NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
replication NN O O
trial NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
PEERS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
caregiver-assisted NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
18-24 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
delayed NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
control NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
PEERS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Most NN O O
treatment NN O O
gains NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
16-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessment NN O O
with NN O O
new NN O O
improvements NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26151440)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SibworkS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
siblings NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
needs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Siblings NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
an NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
emotional NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
the NN O O
emotional NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
functioning NN O O
of NN O O
siblings NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SibworkS NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
six-week NN O O
manual-based NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O O
group NN O O
support NN O O
program NN O O
focussed NN O O
on NN O O
strengthening NN O O
siblings NN O O
' NN O O
perceived NN O O
social NN O O
support NN O O
, NN O O
self-esteem NN O O
, NN O O
problem-solving NN O O
skills NN O O
, NN O O
adaptive NN O O
coping NN O O
behaviors NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
sibling NN O O
relationships NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
7-12 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
SibworkS NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=30 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
waitlist NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=26 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
alternating NN O O
sequence NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
siblings NN O O
' NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sibling NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Siblings NN O O
were NN O O
followed-up NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3-months NN O O
. NN O O

Siblings NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SibworkS NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
fewer NN O O
emotional NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
difficulties NN O O
than NN O O
siblings NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Participation NN O O
in NN O O
SibworkS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
siblings NN O O
. NN O O

Implications NN O O
for NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
include NN O O
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
program NN O O
participation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26173631)

Eltrombopag NN O O
dose NN O O
predictors NN O O
in NN O O
thrombocytopenic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
that NN O O
predict NN O O
effective NN O O
eltrombopag NN O O
dosage NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
HCV NN O O
) NN O O
-related NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O O
. NN O O

Demographic NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
genetic NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
thrombocytopenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1463 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
HCV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
able NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
achieve NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
platelet NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/L NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-INT
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
categorized NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
needed NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
platelet NN O O
count NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eltrombopag NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
predictors NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
two NN O O
stage NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

First NN O O
, NN O O
bivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
anova NN O O
for NN O O
continuous NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
Chi-square NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
categorical NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
possible NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
eltrombopag NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Second NN O O
, NN O O
ordinal NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
with NN O O
stepwise NN O O
addition NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
backward NN O O
deletion NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
predictors NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
bivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
step NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
final NN O O
model NN O O
containing NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
at NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

Ordinal NN O O
logistic NN O O
model NN O O
identified NN O O
several NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
eltrombopag NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
higher NN O O
eltrombopag NN O O
dose NN O O
include NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
having NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
HCV NN O I-OUT
genotype NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
Central/South NN O I-OUT
Asian NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
White NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Caucasian NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
European NN O I-OUT
heritage NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
spleen NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Predictors NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
lower NN O O
eltrombopag NN O O
dose NN O O
include NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
female NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
having NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
ALP NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-OUT
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
identified NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
that NN O O
predict NN O O
effective NN O O
eltrombopag NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HCV-related NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
eltrombopag NN O O
dose NN O O
expedites NN O O
the NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
antiviral NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
antiviral NN O O
therapy NN O O
outcome NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
progress NN O O
into NN O O
liver NN O O
decompensation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26266420)

Homocysteine NN O O
Metabolism NN O O
Gene NN O O
Polymorphisms NN O O
( NN O O
MTHFR NN O O
C677T NN O O
, NN O O
MTHFR NN O O
A1298C NN O O
, NN O O
MTR NN O O
A2756G NN O O
and NN O O
MTRR NN O O
A66G NN O O
) NN O O
Jointly NN O O
Elevate NN O O
the NN O O
Risk NN O O
of NN O O
Folate NN O O
Deficiency NN O O
. NN O O

Folate NN O O
deficiency NN O O
is NN O O
strongly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
methylenetetrahydrofolate NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTHFR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
C677T NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
A1298C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methionine NN O I-INT
synthase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
A2756G NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methionine NN O I-INT
synthase NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTRR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
A66G NN O I-INT
polymorphisms NN O O
on NN O O
folate NN O I-OUT
deficiency NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
480 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
28-75 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2005-December NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Known NN O O
genotypes NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
PCR-RFLP NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
chemiluminescence NN O O
immunoassay NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
MTHFR NN O I-OUT
677TT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MTR NN O I-OUT
2756AG NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
GG NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
folate NN O I-OUT
deficiency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
TT NN O O
vs. NN O O
CC NN O O
+ NN O O
CT NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
AG NN O O
+ NN O O
GG NN O O
vs. NN O O
AA NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.030 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
MTHFR NN O I-INT
A1298C NN O I-INT
mutation NN O O
may NN O O
confer NN O O
protection NN O O
by NN O O
elevating NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
carrying NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
risk NN O O
genotypes NN O O
showed NN O O
higher NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
folate NN O I-OUT
deficiency NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
null NN O O
risk NN O O
genotype NN O O
carriers NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
those NN O O
carrying NN O O
four NN O O
risk NN O O
genotypes NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
verified NN O O
by NN O O
generalized NN O O
multifactor NN O O
dimensionality NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0107 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
cumulative NN O O
effects NN O O
model NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
interactions NN O O
among NN O O
homocysteine NN O O
metabolism NN O O
gene NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
dramatic NN O O
elevations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
folate NN O O
deficiency NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26315857)

Recruitment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Reasons NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Non-Participation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
Family-Coping-Orientated NN O I-INT
Palliative NN O I-INT
Home NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
FamCope NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
need NN O O
support NN O O
to NN O O
cope NN O O
with NN O O
physical NN O O
, NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
existential NN O O
problems NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
palliative NN O O
care NN O O
trajectory NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
interventions NN O O
target NN O O
patient NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
professionals NN O O
acting NN O O
as NN O O
problem-solvers NN O O
. NN O O

Family NN O O
coping NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
research NN O O
area NN O O
within NN O O
palliative NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
FamCope NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
was NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
nurse-led NN O I-INT
family-coping-orientated NN O I-INT
palliative NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
would NN O O
help NN O O
families NN O O
cope NN O O
with NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
problems NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
-- NN O O
together NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
family NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
professionals NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
unexpectedly NN O O
high NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
families NN O O
declined NN O O
participation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
describe NN O O
and NN O O
discuss NN O O
the NN O O
recruitment NN O I-OUT
strategy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
reasons NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
non-participation NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
add NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
what NN O O
impedes NN O O
recruitment NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
influence NN O O
willingness NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
research NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
family NN O O
coping NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
palliative NN O O
care NN O O
trajectory NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
closest NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
oncological NN O I-PAR
departments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Reasons NN O O
for NN O O
non-participation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
registered NN O O
and NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
non-participants NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
non-participants NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
reasons NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
and NN O O
reasons NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
65.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
families NN O O
declined NN O O
participation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O O
main NN O O
categories NN O O
for NN O O
declining NN O O
participation NN O I-OUT
emerged NN O O
: NN O O
first NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
burden NN O O
of NN O O
illness NN O O
is NN O O
too NN O O
great NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
second NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
too NN O O
soon NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
this NN O O
kind NN O O
of NN O O
support NN O O
. NN O O

Men NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
too NN O O
soon NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
characteristics NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Timing NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
and NN O O
readiness NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
relatives NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
willingness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
receive NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
family-coping-orientated NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
approach NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
impeded NN O O
recruitment NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
construct NN O O
interventions NN O O
and NN O O
target NN O O
relevant NN O O
populations NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
family-coping-orientated NN O O
palliative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (26382998)

Oxygen NN O O
saturation NN O O
targets NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bronchiolitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BIDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
equivalence NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
American NN O O
Academy NN O O
of NN O O
Pediatrics NN O O
recommends NN O O
a NN O O
permissive NN O O
hypoxaemic NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
bronchiolitis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
WHO NN O O
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
targets NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
evidence NN O O
exists NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
this NN O O
threshold NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
oxygen NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
normoxic NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
infants NN O O
admitted NN O O
to NN O O
hospital NN O O
with NN O O
viral NN O O
bronchiolitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
a NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
equivalence NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
physician-diagnosed NN O I-PAR
bronchiolitis NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Bronchiolitis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Infancy NN O I-PAR
Discharge NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
BIDS NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
central NN O O
computer NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
infants NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
varying NN O O
length NN O O
blocks NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
stratification NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
clipped NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
oximeters NN O I-INT
( NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
oxygen NN O O
if NN O O
pulse NN O O
oxygen NN O O
saturation NN O O
[ NN O O
SpO2 NN O O
] NN O O
< NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
oximeters NN O I-INT
( NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
measured NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
as NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
oxygen NN O O
not NN O O
given NN O O
until NN O O
SpO2 NN O O
< NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
parents NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
staff NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
assessors NN O O
were NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
allocation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
prespecified NN O O
equivalence NN O O
limits NN O O
of NN O O
plus NN O O
or NN O O
minus NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
ISRCTN NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
ISRCTN28405428 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Between NN O O
Oct NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
March NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
2012 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Oct NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
March NN O O
29 NN O O
, NN O O
2013 NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
308 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
standard NN O O
oximeters NN O O
and NN O O
307 NN O O
infants NN O O
to NN O O
modified NN O O
oximeters NN O O
. NN O O

Cough NN O I-OUT
resolved NN O O
by NN O O
15?0 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
difference NN O O
-1 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
so NN O O
oxygen NN O O
thresholds NN O O
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
recorded NN O O
35 NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
32 NN O O
infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
24 NN O O
infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
eight NN O O
infants NN O I-OUT
transferred NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
high-dependency NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
23 NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
readmitted NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
one NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
infants NN O O
were NN O O
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
high-dependency NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
12 NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
readmitted NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Recorded NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Management NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bronchiolitis NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
an NN O O
oxygen NN O O
saturation NN O O
target NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
research NN O O
should NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
and NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
oxygen NN O O
saturation NN O O
targets NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
respiratory NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
nations NN O O
where NN O O
resources NN O O
are NN O O
scarce NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
National NN O O
Institute NN O O
for NN O O
Health NN O O
Research NN O O
, NN O O
Health NN O O
Technology NN O O
Assessment NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2644391)

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
vaginosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
2-g NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
vaginosis NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
cure NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
decreasing NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
2-g NN O O
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
seven-day NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
vaginosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
partner NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
cure NN O O
rate NN O O
by NN O O
Gram-stained NN O O
smear NN O O
criteria NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
symptoms NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
initiating NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
seven-day NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
metronidazole NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
single-dose NN O O
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
clue NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
sniff NN O O
test NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Gram-stained NN O I-OUT
smear NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
patient NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Gram-stained NN O I-OUT
smear NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
partner NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
five NN O O
and NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
patient NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Single-dose NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sexual NN O I-PAR
partner NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
vaginosis NN O I-PAR
improves NN O O
initial NN O O
bacterial NN O I-OUT
vaginosis NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
seven-day NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
metronidazole NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
by NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
single-dose NN O O
therapy NN O O
when NN O O
considering NN O O
initial NN O O
cure NN O O
rates NN O O
by NN O O
clinical NN O O
or NN O O
Gram-stained NN O O
smear NN O O
criteria NN O O
or NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (26448791)

Computer NN O I-INT
Decision NN O I-INT
Support NN O I-INT
Changes NN O O
Physician NN O I-PAR
Practice NN O I-OUT
But NN O O
Not NN O O
Knowledge NN O I-OUT
Regarding NN O O
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
adding NN O O
an NN O O
autism NN O O
module NN O O
promoting NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
guidelines NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
existing NN O O
computer NN O I-INT
decision NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CDSS NN O O
) NN O O
changed NN O O
physician NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
self-reported NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
CHICA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Child NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Improvement NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
Computer NN O I-INT
Automation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
CDSS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
enhanced NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
module NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
improve NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
beliefs NN O O
of NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
cross-sectional NN O I-PAR
surveys NN O I-PAR
administered NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
post-implementation NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Surveys NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
practice NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
pediatricians NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
point NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
95-100 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Respondents NN O O
' NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
vary NN O O
between NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
either NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
or NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
routine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parent-rated NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
instruments NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
post-implementation NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
clinics NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
clinics NN O O
consistently NN O O
screening NN O O
eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
autism NN O O
tool NN O O
. NN O O

Physicians NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
clinics NN O O
reported NN O O
ongoing NN O O
challenges NN O O
to NN O O
community NN O O
resources NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
work-up NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
CDSS NN O I-INT
module NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O O
practice NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
physician-reported NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
validated NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
tools NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
screen NN O O
for NN O O
ASDs NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
corresponding NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
physician NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (26449882)

The NN O O
neuropeptide NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
modulates NN O O
consumer NN O O
brand NN O O
relationships NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
companies NN O O
invest NN O O
billions NN O O
of NN O O
dollars NN O O
into NN O O
marketing NN O O
activities NN O O
to NN O O
embellish NN O O
brands NN O O
as NN O O
valuable NN O O
relationship NN O O
partners NN O O
assuming NN O O
that NN O O
consumer NN O O
brand NN O O
relationships NN O O
( NN O O
CBRs NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
relationships NN O O
rest NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
neurobiological NN O O
underpinnings NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
crucial NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuropeptide NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OXT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
social NN O O
bonding NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
tests NN O O
whether NN O O
OXT-based NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
also NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
bond NN O O
between NN O O
consumers NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
brands NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
involving NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O I-INT
OXT NN O I-INT
on NN O O
consumers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
attribution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
qualities NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
brands NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
brands NN O O
paired NN O O
with NN O O
human NN O O
celebrity NN O O
endorsers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
familiar NN O O
persons NN O O
. NN O O

OXT NN O I-OUT
indeed NN O O
promoted NN O O
the NN O O
attribution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
qualities NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
semi-social NN O O
stimuli NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
brands NN O O
. NN O O

Intriguingly NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
scoring NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
autistic-like NN O I-PAR
traits NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
OXT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
completely NN O O
reversed NN O O
, NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
even NN O O
lower NN O O
relationship NN O I-OUT
qualities NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
all NN O O
stimulus NN O O
categories NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
OXT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
CBR NN O O
context NN O O
is NN O O
further NN O O
corroborated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
three-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
endogenous NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OXT NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
's NN O O
favorite NN O O
brand NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
peripheral NN O O
OXT NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
brand NN O O
relationship NN O O
qualities NN O O
. NN O O

Collectively NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
OXT NN O I-INT
not NN O O
only NN O O
plays NN O O
a NN O O
fundamental NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
interpersonal NN O I-OUT
relationships NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
enables NN O O
relationship NN O O
formation NN O O
with NN O O
objects NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
brands NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26485385)

Preoperative NN O O
Local NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
Morphine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
Add-on NN O O
Therapy NN O O
in NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
Undergoing NN O I-PAR
Surgical NN O I-PAR
Removal NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
Odontogenic NN O I-PAR
Maxillary NN O I-PAR
Cyst NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
Double-Blind NN O O
Pilot NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
locally NN O O
administered NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multimodal NN O O
analgesic NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
improves NN O O
pain NN O O
control NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
odontogenic NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
cyst NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
to NN O O
local NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
sham-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
odontogenic NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
cyst NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
local NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MLA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O O
management NN O O
included NN O O
intravenous NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Upon NN O O
request NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
could NN O O
additionally NN O O
receive NN O O
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
first-line NN O O
additional NN O O
analgesia NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
tramadol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
second-line NN O O
additional NN O O
analgesia NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
numeric NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
48 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
24 NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
MLA NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
LA NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
necessity NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
ketoprofen NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
25.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
50.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.074 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
remaining NN O O
without NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MLA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P=.040 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O O
and NN O O
maximum NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
morphine NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Within NN O O
the NN O O
limitations NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
local NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
odontogenic NN O O
maxillary NN O O
cyst NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
prove NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
very NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
add-on NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26499867)

Do NN O O
cognitive NN O O
measures NN O O
and NN O O
brain NN O O
circuitry NN O O
predict NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
emerging NN O O
research NN O O
detailing NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
balance/gait/falls NN O O
and NN O O
cognition NN O O
. NN O O

Imaging NN O O
studies NN O O
also NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
structural NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frontal NN O O
lobe NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
region NN O O
commonly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cognitive NN O O
function NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mobility NN O O
. NN O O

People NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
important NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cognitive NN O O
function NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
impact NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
underlying NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
cognitive NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
frontal NN O O
lobe NN O O
connections NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O O
ganglia NN O O
and NN O O
brainstem NN O O
posture/locomotor NN O O
centers NN O O
are NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
postural NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
improve NN O O
mobility NN O O
and/or NN O O
cognition NN O O
after NN O O
partaking NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cognitively NN O I-INT
challenging NN O I-INT
mobility NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
cognition NN O O
and NN O O
brain NN O O
circuitry NN O O
deficits NN O O
predict NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
controlled NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
place NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
Balance NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
Laboratory NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
meet NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
exercise NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
cognitively NN O I-INT
challenging NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Agility NN O I-INT
Boot NN O I-INT
Camp NN O I-INT
for NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
PD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
6-week NN O O
program NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O I-INT
people NN O I-INT
how NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
better NN O I-INT
live NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
chronic NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
MiniBESTest NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
mobility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neural NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
further NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
cognition NN O O
and NN O O
mobility NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
brain NN O O
circuitry NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
relates NN O O
to NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
potential NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials.gov NN O O
( NN O O
NCT02231073 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26510728)

Chronic NN O O
fatigue NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
CFS NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
myalgic NN O O
encephalomyelitis NN O O
( NN O O
ME NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
to NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
UK NN O O
and NN O O
Dutch NN O O
clinical NN O O
cohorts NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
syndrome/myalgic NN O I-PAR
encephalomyelitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CFS/ME NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
cohorts NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
CFS/ME NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
include NN O O
: NN O O
fatigue NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
UK-Chalder NN O O
Fatigue NN O O
Scale NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
Disability NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
UK-SF-36 NN O O
physical NN O O
function NN O O
subscale NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
Netherlands-CHQ-CF87 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
school NN O O
attendance NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
UK-Hospital NN O O
Anxiety NN O O
& NN O O
Depression NN O O
Scale NN O O
, NN O O
Spence NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Anxiety NN O O
Scale NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
Netherlands-Spielberger NN O O
State-Trait NN O O
Anxiety NN O O
Inventory NN O O
for NN O O
Children NN O O
, NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Depression NN O O
Inventory NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
symptoms NN O O
; NN O O
time-to-assessment NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
multinomial NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
to NN O O
compare NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
12-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
logistic NN O I-PAR
regression NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
compare NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Dutch NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Younger NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adults NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
more NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
been NN O O
ill NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
longer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Younger NN O I-PAR
children NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
0.18 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.13 NN O O
to NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
present NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
sore NN O O
throat NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.42 NN O O
( NN O O
1.07 NN O O
to NN O O
1.90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adolescents NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
headaches NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
81.1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
1.56 NN O O
( NN O O
1.36 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
1.80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
tender NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
palpitations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
malaise NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

Adolescents NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
comorbid NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
1.51 NN O O
( NN O O
1.33 NN O O
to NN O O
1.72 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
0.46 NN O O
( NN O O
0.41 NN O O
to NN O O
0.53 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Paediatricians NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
recognise NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CFS/ME NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
differently NN O O
from NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
reflect NN O O
an NN O O
underlying NN O O
aetiopathology NN O O
requires NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBERS NN O O
FITNET NN O O
trial NN O O
registration NN O O
numbers NN O O
are NN O O
ISRCTN59878666 NN O O
and NN O O
NCT00893438 NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
includes NN O O
secondary NN O O
( NN O O
post-results NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
are NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
trial NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26527417)

The NN O O
ileal NN O I-INT
bile NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
transporter NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
A4250 NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
bile NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
interrupting NN O O
the NN O O
enterohepatic NN O O
circulation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Reabsorption NN O O
of NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
intestine NN O O
by NN O O
ileal NN O O
bile NN O O
acid NN O O
transporter NN O O
is NN O O
pivotal NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
enterohepatic NN O O
circulation NN O O
of NN O O
BAs NN O O
and NN O O
sterol NN O O
homoeostasis NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
bile NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O O
ileal NN O O
bile NN O O
acid NN O O
transporter NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
A4250 NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
single-ascending NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
SAD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
multiple-ascending-dose NN O O
study NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
comprising NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
A4250 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
, NN O O
0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
comprising NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
1-week NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-INT
A4250 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
or NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O I-INT
the NN O O
multiple-ascending-dose NN O O
study NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bile NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
HPLC-MS NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
faeces NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibroblast NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
19 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FGF19 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
7?-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
finished NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
multiple-ascending-dose NN O O
study NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
bile NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FGF19 NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
C4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
faecal NN O I-OUT
bile NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
dose NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
555 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
664 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
292 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
338 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
421 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
420 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01-0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
cholic NN O O
and NN O O
chenodeoxycholic NN O O
acids NN O O
constituted NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
faecal NN O I-OUT
bile NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
A4250-treated NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A4250 NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
blocking NN O O
ileal NN O I-INT
bile NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
transporter NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
terminal NN O O
ileum NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
highly NN O O
efficiently NN O O
interrupts NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
enterohepatic NN O I-OUT
circulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BAs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
should NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cholestatic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O O
registration NN O O
EudraCT NN O O
2013-001175-21 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26606872)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
Neuromuscular NN O I-INT
Electrical NN O I-INT
Stimulation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Dysphagia NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Medullary NN O I-PAR
Infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
neuromuscular NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NMES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
acting NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O O
input NN O O
or NN O O
motor NN O O
muscle NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dysphagia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
medullary NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
medicine NN O O
and NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dysphagia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
medullary NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=82 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
swallowing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
swallowing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
swallowing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Electrical NN O O
stimulation NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
5d/wk NN O O
, NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Swallowing NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
water NN O I-OUT
swallow NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Standardized NN O I-OUT
Swallowing NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Functional NN O I-OUT
Oral NN O I-OUT
Intake NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Swallowing-Related NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SWAL-QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
cognition NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Mini-Mental NN O I-OUT
State NN O I-OUT
Examination NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MMSE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
MMSE NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
swallowing NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
improved NN O O
swallowing NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P?.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O O
approach NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
traditional NN O O
swallowing NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
approach NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
traditional NN O O
swallowing NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
swallowing NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O I-OUT
.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SWAL-QOL NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
swallowing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
swallowing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
swallowing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
swallowing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
swallowing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
NMES NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
targets NN O O
either NN O O
sensory NN O O
input NN O O
or NN O O
motor NN O O
muscle NN O O
coupled NN O O
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
conducive NN O O
to NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
dysphagia NN O O
and NN O O
improves NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dysphagia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
medullary NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
appears NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
motor NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2663585)

Influence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ibopamine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arrhythmic NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Ibopamine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
dopaminergic NN O O
and NN O O
adrenergic NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
active NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
congestive NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
prognosis NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
very NN O O
poor NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
arrhythmic NN O O
death NN O O
is NN O O
high NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
new NN O O
drug NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
employed NN O O
against NN O O
this NN O O
disease NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
thoroughly NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
rule NN O O
out NN O O
any NN O O
possible NN O O
arrhythmogenic NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ibopamine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
double-blind NN O O
conditions NN O O
on NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrical NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ibopamine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
employed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
t.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
97 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
aged NN O I-INT
31-83 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
belonging NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
NYHA NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
congestive NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
failure NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
aetiology NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
complex NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
arrhythmias NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
basal NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
couplets NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
R'-R NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
msec NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
tachycardia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
R NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
phenomena NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
hr NN O O
. NN O O

Holter NN O I-OUT
recordings NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
basal NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ibopamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ibopamine NN O O
117.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20.9 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O O
118.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20.7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
medium NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ibopamine NN O O
71.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.2 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O O
72.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
minimum NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ibopamine NN O O
55.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.7 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O O
54.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.6 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
number/hr NN O O
. NN O O

of NN O O
ectopic NN O I-OUT
supraventricular NN O I-OUT
beats NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
26.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
61.9 NN O O
after NN O O
ibopamine NN O O
and NN O O
21.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
35.8 NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
complexity NN O O
of NN O O
ectopic NN O I-OUT
supraventricular NN O I-OUT
beats NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
number/hr NN O O
. NN O O

of NN O O
ectopic NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
beats NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
31.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
52.5 NN O O
after NN O O
ibopamine NN O O
and NN O O
30.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
57.8 NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
the NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
among NN O O
Lown NN O I-OUT
classification NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Final NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Italian NN O I-OUT
Lown NN O I-OUT
Classification NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18.0 NN O O
and NN O O
26.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17.9 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
1st NN O O
and NN O O
2nd NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
monitoring NN O O
after NN O O
ibopamine NN O O
and NN O O
25.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18.6 NN O O
and NN O O
25.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18.8 NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
any NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
sub-divided NN O O
into NN O O
subgroups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
sequences NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
basal NN O O
-- NN O O
-- NN O O
ibopamine NN O O
-- NN O O
-- NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
basal NN O O
-- NN O O
-- NN O O
placebo NN O O
-- NN O O
-- NN O O
ibopamine NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
NYHA NN O O
class NN O O
II NN O O
or NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
aetiology NN O O
of NN O O
congestive NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
dilatative NN O O
cardiomyopathy NN O O
, NN O O
ischemic NN O O
cardiomyopathy NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
aetiologies NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
associated NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
digitalis NN O O
or NN O O
diuretics NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
and NN O O
complexity NN O O
of NN O O
base NN O O
ectopic NN O O
ventricular NN O O
beats NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
sustained NN O O
ventricular NN O O
tachycardia NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
400 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (2663834)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
discrimination NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
three NN O O
objectives NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
replicate NN O O
earlier NN O O
findings NN O O
that NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
assess NN O O
its NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
given NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
basis NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
discrimination NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2.02 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
7.58 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
4.49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
completed NN O O
this NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
sequences NN O O
. NN O O

Haloperidol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
powerful NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
agent NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
doses NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
0.25 NN O O
to NN O O
4.0 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
M NN O O
= NN O O
0.844 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Under NN O O
the NN O O
given NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
learn NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (26712084)

Pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
for NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
PD-L1-positive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
KEYNOTE-010 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Despite NN O O
recent NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
progressive NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
PD-L1-positive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
2/3 NN O O
study NN O O
at NN O O
202 NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PD-L1 NN O I-PAR
expression NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
tumour NN O I-PAR
cells NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
( NN O O
1:1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
blocks NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
per NN O O
stratum NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O O
voice-response NN O O
system NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
PD-L1 NN O O
expression NN O O
on NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
tumour NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
threshold NN O O
for NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.00825 NN O O
( NN O O
one-sided NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
threshold NN O O
of NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
progression-free NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT01905657 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
Aug NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Feb NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2015 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
1034 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
345 NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
346 NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
343 NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
By NN O O
Sept NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
2015 NN O O
, NN O O
521 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.4 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
12.7 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8.5 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
for NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
versus NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
0.71 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.58-0.88 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
versus NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
( NN O O
0.61 NN O O
, NN O O
0.49-0.75 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.9 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
4.0 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4.0 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
for NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
versus NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
( NN O O
0.88 NN O O
, NN O O
0.74-1.05 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
for NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
versus NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.79 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.66-0.94 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
tumour NN O O
cells NN O O
expressing NN O O
PD-L1 NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
with NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
14.9 NN O O
months NN O O
vs NN O O
8.2 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
0.54 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.38-0.77 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
( NN O O
17.3 NN O O
months NN O O
vs NN O O
8.2 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
0.50 NN O O
, NN O O
0.36-0.70 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Likewise NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
with NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
median NN O O
5.0 NN O O
months NN O O
vs NN O O
4.1 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
0.59 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.44-0.78 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
( NN O O
5.2 NN O O
months NN O O
vs NN O O
4.1 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
0.59 NN O O
, NN O O
0.45-0.78 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
3-5 NN O I-OUT
treatment-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
[ NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
339 NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
55 NN O O
[ NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
343 NN O O
given NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
109 NN O O
[ NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
309 NN O O
given NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
prolongs NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
favourable NN O O
benefit-to-risk NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
PD-L1-positive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
data NN O O
establish NN O O
pembrolizumab NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
validate NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
PD-L1 NN O O
selection NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Merck NN O O
& NN O O
Co NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2678349)

Covariance NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
generalized NN O I-PAR
linear NN O I-PAR
measurement NN O I-PAR
error NN O I-PAR
models NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
summarize NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
recent NN O O
work NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
errors-in-variables NN O O
problem NN O O
in NN O O
generalized NN O O
linear NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
focus NN O O
is NN O O
on NN O O
covariance NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
and NN O O
estimation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
considerable NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
non-randomized NN O O
models NN O O
when NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
simple NN O O
techniques NN O O
exist NN O O
for NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
some NN O O
instances NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
linear NN O O
and NN O O
multiplicative NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
simple NN O O
methods NN O O
exist NN O O
for NN O O
estimating NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
other NN O O
examples NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
estimating NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
requires NN O O
careful NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
measurement NN O O
error NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
non-randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
recourse NN O O
to NN O O
understanding NN O O
and NN O O
modelling NN O O
measurement NN O O
error NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
ignoring NN O O
measurement NN O O
error NN O O
can NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
wrong NN O O
conclusions NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
example NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O O
but NN O O
unobserved NN O O
data NN O O
may NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
the NN O O
opposite NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
methods NN O O
are NN O O
outlined NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26902035)

Oxidized NN O I-INT
Regenerated NN O I-INT
Cellulose NN O I-INT
Reduces NN O O
the NN O O
Amount NN O O
of NN O O
Fluid NN O O
Drainage NN O O
after NN O O
Liver NN O O
Resection NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Prospective NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND/AIMS NN O O
Oxidized NN O I-INT
regenerated NN O I-INT
cellulose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ORC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
registered NN O O
as NN O O
adjuncts NN O O
to NN O O
stimulate NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
in NN O O
liver NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
primarily NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
intra-operative NN O O
hemostatic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
application NN O O
was NN O O
never NN O O
studied NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
ORC NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
agent NN O O
covering NN O O
the NN O O
raw NN O O
cut NN O O
surface NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hepatectomy NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
drainage NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
hepatectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
ORC NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
resection-related NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
debit NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
comparable NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
terms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
demographics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
indications NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hepatectomy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ORC NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
406.9 NN O O
? NN O O
308.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
627.0 NN O O
? NN O O
301.6 NN O O
ml NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Application NN O O
of NN O O
ORC NN O I-INT
covering NN O I-INT
the NN O O
raw NN O O
cut NN O O
surface NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
hepatectomy NN O O
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
drainage NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2690913)

West NN O O
Midlands NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Association NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
operable NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

I NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
axillary NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
regimen NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
known NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
active NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
569 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
axillary NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
simple NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
axillary NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
no NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O I-INT
AVCMF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
eight NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
stratified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
menopausal NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
tumour NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
within NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-eight NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
seven NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
dose NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
prolonged NN O O
by NN O O
14 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
AVCMF NN O I-INT
( NN O O
chi2 NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
11.7 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
17 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
chi2 NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
8.8 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
( NN O O
chi2 NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
3.3 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
subgroups NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2696035)

Methods NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
trials NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (27036056)

Internet-based NN O I-INT
Mindfulness NN O I-INT
Meditation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Cognition NN O O
and NN O O
Mood NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Older NN O I-PAR
Adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Pilot NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
greater NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Training NN O O
in NN O O
mindfulness NN O I-INT
meditation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
help NN O O
reduce NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O O
adults NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
little NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
explored NN O O
that NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
's NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
use NN O O
by NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
the NN O O
Internet NN O I-INT
Mindfulness NN O I-INT
Meditation NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IMMI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
program NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
team NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Internet-based NN O O
health-and-wellness NN O O
education NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
collect NN O O
preliminary NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postintervention NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
meditation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
education NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Participants NN O O
obtained NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
programs NN O O
from NN O O
their NN O O
homes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
endpoint NN O O
assessments NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
homes NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
65-90 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Portland NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
OR NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
metropolitan NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
took NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
1-h NN O I-INT
online NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
through NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
client NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

Mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O I-PAR
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
completion NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
mean NN O O
age NN O O
was NN O O
76.2 NN O O
y NN O O
; NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
Caucasian NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
female NN O O
. NN O O

Acceptability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
above-average NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
client NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IMMI NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
completed NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
4.25 NN O O
? NN O O
2.4 NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
0-6 NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
604 NN O O
? NN O O
506 NN O O
home-practice NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
0-1432 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
21.3 NN O O
? NN O O
15.5 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
0-46 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
education NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
completed NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
4.75 NN O O
? NN O O
1.8 NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
2-6 NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
873 NN O O
? NN O O
395 NN O O
home-practice NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
327-1524 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
25.6 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
11-35 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
formats NN O O
were NN O O
both NN O O
feasible NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
appropriate NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
expected NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pilot NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
existed NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Administering NN O O
interventions NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
Internet NN O O
to NN O O
older NN O O
adults NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
2 NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
acceptable NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
equal NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
credibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Future NN O I-OUT
RCTs NN O O
are NN O O
planned NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (27348905)

[ NN O I-PAR
Diabetic NN O I-PAR
constipation NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
acupoint NN O I-INT
embedding NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
forlax NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
forlaxand NN O I-INT
acupoint NN O I-INT
embedding NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
acupoint NN O I-INT
embedding NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
for-lax NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
on NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
constipation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
intoa NN O I-PAR
comprehensive NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
an NN O O
acupoint NN O I-INT
embedding NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
forlax NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
50 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
one NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
acupointembedding NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
embedding NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
bilateral NN O I-INT
Tianshu NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Daheng NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SP NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Shangjuxu NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
37 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Dachangshu NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BL NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
forlax NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
forlax NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
glycol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
prescribedfor NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
g NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
acupoint NN O I-INT
embedding NN O I-INT
therapyand NN O I-INT
forlax NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
wasas NN O O
one NN O O
session NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Separately NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and2 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
constipation NN O O
symptom NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of2 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In2 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effectiverate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
98 NN O O
. NN O O

0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
49/50 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
86 NN O O
. NN O O

0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
43/50 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acupoint NN O O
embeddinggroup NN O O
and NN O O
78 NN O O
. NN O O

0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
11/50 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
forlax NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
con-stipation NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
acupoint NN O O
embedding NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
forlax NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
scores NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acupoint NN O O
embedding NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
tan NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
forlax NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
2 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
adverse NN O O
reaction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
forlax NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
case NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acupoint NN O O
embedding NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
8.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
4/49 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
32.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
14/43 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acupoint NN O O
embedding NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
59.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
23/39 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
forlax NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
acupoint NN O I-INT
embedding NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
forlax NN O I-INT
achieves NN O O
the NN O O
better NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
on NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
constipation NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
constipation NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
acupoint NN O I-INT
embedding NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
forlax NN O I-INT
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
simple NN O O
acupoint NN O O
embedding NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
simple NN O O
forlax NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
are NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
simple NN O O
forlax NN O O
medicaiton NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2768768)

Cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
adaptations NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
4-month NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
Aerobic NN O I-INT
Exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Yoga NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Flexibility NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Waiting NN O I-INT
List NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
4-month NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
underwent NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
physiological NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
evaluations NN O O
. NN O O

Physiological NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiorespiratory NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Psychological NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O O
produced NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
11.6 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O O
VO2 NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
threshold NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Yoga NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Waiting NN O I-INT
List NN O I-INT
control NN O O
groups NN O O
experienced NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
cardiorespiratory NN O O
fitness NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
favorable NN O O
physiological NN O O
changes NN O O
observed NN O O
among NN O O
aerobic NN O O
exercise NN O O
participants NN O O
included NN O O
lower NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
diastolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
bone NN O O
fracture NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
few NN O O
significant NN O O
psychological NN O O
changes NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
perceived NN O O
themselves NN O O
as NN O O
improving NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
dimensions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2788816)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
staple NN O I-INT
transection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
esophagus NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
varices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
compared NN O O
two NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-PAR
varices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
transfusion NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
vasoactive NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
varices NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
undergo NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
emergency NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
staple NN O I-INT
transection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
esophagus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
51 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Four NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
12 NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
staple NN O O
transection NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
actually NN O O
undergo NN O O
those NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
all NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
staple NN O O
transection NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
0.88 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.51 NN O O
to NN O O
1.54 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mortality NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
44 NN O O
percent NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
35 NN O O
percent NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
staple NN O O
transection NN O O
. NN O O

Complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
interval NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
five NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
88 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
staple NN O O
transection NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
62 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
injection NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
82 NN O O
percent NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
only NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
was NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
controlled NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
five NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
staple NN O O
transection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
esophagus NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
sclerotherapy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O O
varices NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
currently NN O O
recommend NN O O
surgery NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
injection NN O O
treatments NN O O
have NN O O
failed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2855516)

Strategies NN O O
for NN O O
dietary NN O O
and NN O O
anti-smoking NN O O
advice NN O O
. NN O O

Practical NN O O
experiences NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Oslo NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
controlled NN O O
preventive NN O O
trials NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
Oslo NN O O
Study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
non-drug NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
coronary NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
1232 NN O I-PAR
middleaged NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
had NN O O
elevated NN O O
serum NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
smoked NN O O
every NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
met NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
examination NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
counselling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
lowering NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

10 NN O O
% NN O O
net NN O O
reduction NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
about NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
cigarette NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
fatal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-fatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sudden NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
lowering NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
incidence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
2-sided NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
intervention NN O O
strategies NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
concept NN O O
to NN O O
participant NN O O
and NN O O
spouse NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anti-smoking NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
after NN O O
finishing NN O O
an NN O O
extensive NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
exercise-ECG NN O O
basis NN O O
and NN O O
background NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
counselling NN O O
strategy NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
situation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participant NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
items NN O O
: NN O O
personality NN O O
, NN O O
motivation NN O O
, NN O O
diet NN O O
history NN O O
, NN O O
bodyweight NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
lipids NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
sugar NN O O
anti-smoking NN O O
advice NN O O
given NN O O
individually NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
smokers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
advice NN O O
that NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
was NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
special NN O O
importance NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O O
blood NN O O
lipids NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2859779)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
acebutolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acebutolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
various NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
means NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

M-mode NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
acebutolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
propranolol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
or NN O O
near-normal NN O O
resting NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
drug NN O O
induced NN O O
depression NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
acebutolol NN O I-INT
under NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
gated NN O O
( NN O O
equilibrium NN O O
) NN O O
myocardial NN O O
blood NN O O
pool NN O O
imaging NN O O
using NN O O
red NN O O
blood NN O O
cells NN O O
labeled NN O O
with NN O O
technetium NN O O
99m NN O O
showed NN O O
acebutolol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
negative NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
performance NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
or NN O O
during NN O O
supine NN O O
bicycle NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Acebutolol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
effective NN O O
antianginal NN O O
doses NN O O
modestly NN O O
improved NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
regional NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
single-pass NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
with NN O O
indium NN O O
113 NN O O
under NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
conditions NN O O
similarly NN O O
showed NN O O
acebutolol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
negative NN O O
inotropic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
acebutolol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
wide NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fractions NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
beta NN O O
blockers NN O O
, NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
cautiously NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduced NN O I-PAR
resting NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2869714)

[ NN O O
Potentiation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
non-depolarizing NN O O
muscle NN O I-PAR
relaxants NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
acylaminopenicillins NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Studies NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
example NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
nondepolarizing NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
relaxants NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
acylaminopenicillins NN O I-INT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
electromyographically NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
apalcillin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
azlocillin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mezlocillin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
piperacillin NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

Muscle NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
acting NN O O
nondepolarizing NN O O
relaxant NN O O
vecuronium NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
shows NN O O
no NN O O
cumulative NN O O
effect NN O O
within NN O O
clinical NN O O
dosages NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intra-individual NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
+26 NN O O
% NN O O
following NN O O
apalcillin NN O O
, NN O O
+46 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
piperacillin NN O O
, NN O O
+38 NN O O
% NN O O
following NN O O
mezlocillin NN O O
and NN O O
+55 NN O O
% NN O O
following NN O O
azlocillin NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
shortest NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
periods NN O O
was NN O O
8.6 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
32.6 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
EMG-response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
detected NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
method NN O O
described NN O O
here NN O O
has NN O O
proven NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
sensitive NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
relaxants NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
caution NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
if NN O O
acylaminopenicillins NN O I-INT
are NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2890442)

Cardiovascular NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
non-depolarizing NN O I-INT
neuromuscular NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
compare NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
responses NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
equipotent NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
neuromuscular NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
and NN O O
high-dose NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
micrograms.kg-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
pancuronium NN O I-INT
0.12 NN O I-INT
mg.kg-1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vecuronium NN O I-INT
0.12 NN O I-INT
mg.kg-1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
atracurium NN O I-INT
0.4 NN O I-INT
mg.kg-1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pancuronium-metocurine NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
+ NN O O
1.6 NN O O
mg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
ml/10 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neuromuscular NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
were NN O O
injected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
haemodynamics NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
awake NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
minutes NN O O
post-induction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
and NN O O
five NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
intubation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
AS NN O O
, NN O O
pancuronium NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
or NN O O
atracurium NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
pancuronium-metocurine NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
ECG NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
given NN O O
pancuronium NN O O
developed NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reductions NN O O
in NN O O
SVR NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
atracurium NN O O
allowed NN O O
small NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
MAP NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
one NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
develop NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intubation NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
MAP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
pancuronium-metocurine NN O I-INT
mixture NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Vecuronium NN O I-INT
permitted NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
stable NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
measurement NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
AI NN O O
showed NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
haemodynamics NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pancuronium NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
pancuronium-metocurine NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
one NN O O
patient NN O O
became NN O O
tachycardic NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Atracurium NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
unexplained NN O O
elevations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
PCWP NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CVP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
atracurium NN O I-INT
inpatients NN O O
with NN O O
Al NN O O
need NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2895910)

Multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prematurity NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Cryotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Retinopathy NN O O
of NN O O
Prematurity NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
preliminary NN O O
3-month NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
retinopathy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
prematurity NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ROP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Transscleral NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
avascular NN O O
retina NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
eye NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
threshold NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
five NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
contiguous NN O O
or NN O O
eight NN O O
cumulative NN O O
30 NN O O
degree NN O O
sectors NN O O
[ NN O O
clock NN O O
hours NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
stage NN O O
3 NN O O
ROP NN O O
in NN O O
zone NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
plus NN O O
disease NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
posterior NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
detachment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
fold NN O I-OUT
involving NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
macula NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
retrolental NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
this NN O O
writing NN O O
, NN O O
172 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
unfavorable NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
undergoing NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
21.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
untreated NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
stressful NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
unexpected NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
during NN O O
or NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
one NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
retinal NN O O
outcome NN O O
from NN O O
threshold NN O O
ROP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2947151)

[ NN O O
Therapeutic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
trimetazidine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
trimetazidine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
ST NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nifedipine NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
placebo NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
14 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
treated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
trimetazidine NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
workload NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
attained NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
31 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.009 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
31 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.024 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
double NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/workload NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-5 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
+11 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.005 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
acceptability NN O O
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
trimetazidine NN O O
being NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
trimetazidine NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O O
antagonist NN O O
brings NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2963645)

Flow-cytometric NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
eleutherococcus NN O I-INT
senticosus NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
immunomodulatory NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Eleutherococcus NN O I-INT
senticosus NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Eleukokk NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
utilising NN O I-PAR
quantitative NN O I-PAR
multi-parameter NN O I-PAR
flow NN O I-PAR
cytometry NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
monoclonal NN O I-PAR
antibodies NN O I-PAR
directed NN O I-PAR
against NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-PAR
surface NN O I-PAR
markers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
lymphocyte NN O I-PAR
subsets NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Volunteers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
verum NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
10 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
ethanolic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vincamine NN O I-INT
free NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
eleutherococcus NN O I-INT
senticosus NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
eleutherococcus NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
substituted NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
wine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
resulting NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
identical NN O I-INT
final NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ethanol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
preparations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
demonstration NN O O
of NN O O
possible NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
cellular NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
quantitative NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
cytometry NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
most NN O O
salient NN O O
feature NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
verum NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
drastic NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
immunocompetent NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
especially NN O O
pronounced NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
predominantly NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
helper/inducer NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
on NN O O
cytotoxic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O O
enhancement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
or NN O O
afterwards NN O O
( NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2990708)

Intensive NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
small NN O O
cell NN O O
anaplastic NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lung NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
small NN O O
cell NN O O
cancer NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lung NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
standard-dose NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
semustine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
where NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
sole NN O O
treatment NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
high-dose NN O O
therapy NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
standard-dose NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
43 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
standard-dose NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
achieving NN O O
CR NN O O
was NN O O
prolonged NN O O
( NN O O
92 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
50 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
standard-dose NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
most NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
induction NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
doses NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
by NN O O
achieving NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
remission NN O O
with NN O O
intensive NN O O
induction NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O O
morbidity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3056498)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
continuously NN O O
administered NN O O
progestogen NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
oestradiol NN O I-INT
combinations NN O O
for NN O O
climacteric NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sixty NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
climacteric NN O I-PAR
complaints NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
menstruated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
hormonal NN O O
replacement NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
four NN O O
formulations NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
continuously NN O O
and NN O O
each NN O O
contained NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
oestradiol-17 NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
norethisterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
alleviation NN O O
of NN O O
vasomotor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
somewhat NN O O
slower NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
women NN O O
receiving NN O O
preparation NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
endometrium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
atrophied NN O O
in NN O O
nearly NN O O
all NN O O
biopsies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Irregular NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
almost NN O O
entirely NN O O
confined NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
earlier NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
substantially NN O O
less NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
formulation NN O O
containing NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
norethisterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
oestradiol-progestogen NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
climacteric NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
that NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
progestogen NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3059450)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
5-aminosalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
g NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
enemas NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
distal NN O I-OUT
ulcerative NN O I-OUT
colitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
ulcerative NN O I-PAR
colitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
randomly NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
g NN O O
5-aminosalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-ASA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
enemas NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Endoscopic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
5-ASA NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
efficacious NN O O
as NN O O
PP NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
distal NN O I-OUT
ulcerative NN O I-OUT
colitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3089050)

Caudal NN O O
analgesia NN O O
for NN O O
perianal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Seventy-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
perianal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
caudal NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
plain NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
diamorphine NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
caudal NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
made NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
requirements NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
which NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
required NN O O
temporary NN O I-OUT
catheterisation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
caudal NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
gives NN O O
good NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
for NN O O
perianal NN O O
operations NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
when NN O O
motor NN O O
blockade NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
wanted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3112261)

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
symmetrically-impacted NN O I-PAR
mandibular NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
long-acting NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
agent NN O O
( NN O I-INT
diflunisal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
long-acting NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
agent NN O O
( NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
traditional NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
analgesic NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
( NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
codeine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
experienced NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
diflunisal/bupivacaine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
report NN O O
represents NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
such NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
diflunisal NN O I-INT
used NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
extended NN O O
course NN O O
in NN O O
oral NN O O
surgery NN O O
with NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
encountered NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3122275)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
circulation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prostaglandins NN O O
( NN O O
PGs NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
E-type NN O O
are NN O O
potent NN O O
vasodilators NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
species NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
vascular NN O O
beds NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
vasoconstrictor NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
PGEs NN O O
have NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
noted NN O O
at NN O O
selected NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
analog NN O O
with NN O O
antiulcer NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
a NN O O
12 NN O O
hour NN O O
fast NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
arterial NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
light NN O O
reflex NN O O
plethysmography NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
finger NN O O
, NN O O
resting NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
leg NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

intervals NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
permit NN O O
calculating NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Misoprostol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mcg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
orally NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

intervals NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
leg NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
corresponding NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
small NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
importance NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mcg NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
vasoconstrictive NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
vasodilative NN O I-OUT
properties NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3137065)

Control NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
isosorbide NN O I-INT
dinitrate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
of NN O O
prime NN O O
importance NN O O
during NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Hypertension NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
ensuing NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
demand NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aetiology NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NTG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
long NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
beneficially NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
demand NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
vascular NN O O
resistances NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
alternative NN O O
nitrate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
isosorbide NN O I-INT
dinitrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ISDN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
now NN O O
available NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
preparation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
technical NN O O
advantages NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
stability NN O O
in NN O O
solution NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
its NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
half-life NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
designed NN O O
and NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
a NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ISDN NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NTG NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O O
hypertension NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
288 NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
exceeded NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
predetermined NN O I-PAR
trigger NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
observed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ISDN NN O I-INT
was NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
NTG NN O I-INT
had NN O O
an NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
success NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SBP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lowered NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
ISDN NN O I-INT
, NN O O
155 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
to NN O O
138 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
NTG NN O O
, NN O O
160 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
to NN O O
130 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
ISDN NN O I-INT
was NN O O
6.5 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
for NN O O
NTG NN O I-INT
this NN O O
was NN O O
3.8 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
ISDN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
less NN O O
events NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
place NN O O
possibly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
many NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
NTG NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
ISDN NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
and NN O O
alternative NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3236940)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
antihistamine NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
cinnarizine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
simple NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
a NN O O
histamine NN O O
antagonist NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
reaction NN O O
to NN O O
intradermal NN O O
histamine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
antihistamine NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
cinnarizine NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
diphenhydramine NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
being NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
blind NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
intradermal NN O O
injections NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
forearm NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
0.05 NN O O
ml NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
5 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
of NN O O
histamine NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
times NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
histamine-induced NN O O
wheal NN O O
area NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
wheal NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
diphenhydramine NN O I-OUT
produced NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
histamine-induced NN O I-OUT
wheal NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1.5 NN O O
h NN O O
which NN O O
lasted NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
reaching NN O O
maximum NN O O
inhibition NN O O
at NN O O
2.5 NN O O
h. NN O O
After NN O O
cinnarizine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
histamine-induced NN O I-OUT
wheal NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3287226)

[ NN O I-OUT
Prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
prosthesis NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
latest NN O O
research NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peri- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
found NN O O
orthopaedic NN O O
surgery NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
most NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
the NN O O
genesis NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
( NN O O
DVT NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
, NN O O
hemorheologic NN O O
and NN O O
parietal NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
various NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
measures NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
past NN O O
, NN O O
measures NN O O
which NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
proved NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
protection NN O O
in NN O O
orthopaedics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
Defibrotide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
versus NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
involving NN O O
211 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
sexes NN O I-PAR
candidates NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
thromboembolic NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Defibrotide NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
phleboclysis NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
108 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
t.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
103 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
began NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
average NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
eighth NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Defibrotide NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
With NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
it NN O O
continued NN O O
until NN O O
discharge NN O O
( NN O O
usually NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
15th NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
for NN O O
about NN O O
three NN O O
weeks NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
108 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Defibrotide NN O I-INT
only NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
DVT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
encountered NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
calcium NN O O
heparin NN O O
2 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
radiologically NN O I-OUT
diagnosed NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
4 NN O O
cases NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DVT NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
tendency NN O O
favours NN O O
Defibrotide NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
particular NN O O
attention NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Defibrotide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
scarring NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
excellent NN O O
in NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heparin NN O O
group NN O O
scarring NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
conclude NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sure NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
handiness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
clotting NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
make NN O O
Defibrotide NN O I-INT
a NN O O
really NN O O
useful NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
orthopaedic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3307414)

Diclofenac NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
decreases NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
glomerular NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSAIDs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
first NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
glomerulonephritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
GN NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
1966 NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
efficiency NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
debated NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
antiproteinuric NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

29 NN O I-PAR
GN NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
membranoproliferative NN O I-PAR
GN NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
IgA NN O I-PAR
GN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
antiproteinuric NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O O
of NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diclofenac NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
was NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/min NN O O
at NN O O
onset NN O O
and NN O O
2.45 NN O O
mg/min NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
2.2 NN O O
and NN O O
0.95 NN O O
mg/min NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Diclofenac NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
increase NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Gastric NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
only NN O O
once NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
establishes NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
antiproteinuric NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
this NN O O
action NN O O
affects NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3331506)

Physicians NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hypertension NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
CME NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3341795)

Topical NN O I-INT
fibronectin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-OUT
stasis NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3370523)

Moisture-vapour-permeable NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
burn NN O I-PAR
dressing NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
a NN O O
moisture-vapour-permeable NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MVPF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
silver NN O I-INT
sulphadiazine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
manner NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
closely NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
cent NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
BSA NN O I-PAR
burned NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
burn NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
locations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
MVPF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
39.0 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dressing NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
silver NN O I-INT
sulphadiazine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MVPF NN O I-INT
film NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
difficulty NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
dressing NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
MVPF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
silver NN O I-INT
sulphadiazine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3434628)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
ionization NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hyperactive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
attention NN O I-PAR
deficit NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
exposed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
negatively NN O I-INT
ionized NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ambient NN O I-INT
atmospheres NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
rigorously NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
negatively NN O I-INT
ionized NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affect NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impulsivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reality NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
destructive/constructiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significant NN O O
results NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
if NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
known NN O I-PAR
hyperserotoninemic NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
attention NN O I-PAR
deficit NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
negatively NN O I-INT
ionized NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3475309)

A NN O O
30-month NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
hygiene NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Streptococcus NN O I-OUT
mutans NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
approximal NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
caries NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
hygiene NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Streptococcus NN O I-OUT
mutants NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
approximal NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
caries NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty-seven NN O I-PAR
13-year-old NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
salivary NN O I-PAR
S. NN O I-OUT
mutans NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/mL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
distributed NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
I NN O O
initially NN O O
received NN O O
professional NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
tooth-cleaning NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tongue-scraping NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
hygiene NN O I-INT
instructions NN O I-INT
concentrated NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
approximal NN O O
surfaces NN O O
most NN O O
colonized NN O O
by NN O O
S. NN O O
mutans NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
with NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
one NN O O
single NN O O
treatment NN O O
every NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
visits NN O O
, NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
hygiene NN O I-INT
instructions NN O I-INT
as NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
instructions NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
III NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
preventive NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
Dental NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Office NN O I-INT
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
mechanical NN O I-INT
plaque NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
and NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fluorides NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
individualized NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
I NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
immediate NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
S. NN O I-OUT
mutans NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
saliva NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
approximal NN O O
tooth NN O O
surfaces NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
S. NN O I-OUT
mutans NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
caries NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
selected NN O O
high-risk NN O O
individuals NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
developed NN O O
0.25 NN O O
new NN O O
manifest NN O O
caries NN O O
lesions NN O O
approximally/year NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.27 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
children NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O

Seventeen NN O O
individuals NN O O
had NN O O
approximal NN O O
surfaces NN O O
with NN O O
consistently NN O O
high NN O O
or NN O O
consistently NN O O
low NN O O
S. NN O I-OUT
mutans NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Forty-six NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surfaces NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
values NN O O
developed NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
caries NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surfaces NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3516395)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
cytarabine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
amsacrine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myelogenous NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Leukemia NN O I-PAR
Intergroup NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myelogenous NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
ineligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
anthracycline NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
either NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
judged NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
anthracycline NN O I-INT
resistant NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
maximum NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
high-dose NN O O
cytarabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
amsacrine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
: NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-PAR
cytarabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
amsacrine NN O I-INT
obtained NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remissions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3531514)

Trial NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-cyanidanol-3 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-cyanidanol-3 NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
carried NN O I-INT
out NN O O
in NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
appearances NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3539897)

An NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
radiation NN O O
related NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
neutron NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
report NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
bowel NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
d NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+Be NN O I-INT
neutrons NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
megavoltage NN O I-INT
photons NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bladder NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Acute NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O O
and NN O O
bowel NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
worse NN O O
after NN O O
photon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
photons NN O I-INT
45.7 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
severe NN O O
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
10.6 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
neutron NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Severe NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
photon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
3.8 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
neutron NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Late NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
worse NN O O
after NN O O
neutrons NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Severe NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
58.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
neutron NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
40.5 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
photon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
bowel NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
53.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
neutron NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
photon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
disparity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
makes NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
RBE NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
difficult NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
estimated NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
RBE NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
for NN O O
photon NN O O
dose NN O O
fractions NN O O
of NN O O
2.75 NN O O
Gy NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
3.3 NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
reactions NN O O
and NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
3.4 NN O O
for NN O O
late NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
respective NN O O
RBE NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bowel NN O O
are NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
3.4 NN O O
and NN O O
3.8 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3541602)

Prazosin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
captopril NN O I-INT
as NN O O
initial NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Effect NN O O
on NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
alpha NN O O
blocking NN O O
agent NN O O
prazosin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O O
lipid NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
evaluations NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
four-week NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
washout NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
prazosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Daily NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
titrated NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
for NN O O
prazosin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
two NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
to NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
450 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
adequately NN O O
controlled NN O O
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
85 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
polythiazide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
measured NN O O
variables NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
parallel NN O O
or NN O O
crossover NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
prazosin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
captopril-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
thiazide NN O I-INT
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3546120)

Antihypertensive NN O O
and NN O O
volume-depleting NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O O
clinical NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
51.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O O
to NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
ergometer NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
lactate NN O I-INT
threshold NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
51.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
no NN O I-INT
particular NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
humoral NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
exercised NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercised NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

Whole NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.76 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
workload NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
lactate NN O O
threshold NN O O
during NN O O
graded NN O O
exercise NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
such NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O O
sodium NN O O
excretion NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (3556337)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
gastrin NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O O
calcium NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
acid NN O O
secretion NN O O
and NN O O
gastrin NN O O
release NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O O
antagonist NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
these NN O O
processes NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nifedipine NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
orally NN O O
inhibited NN O O
basal NN O O
acid NN O O
output NN O O
by NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
stimulated NN O O
by NN O O
low NN O O
infusion NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
pentagastrin NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
is NN O O
, NN O O
0.031 NN O O
and NN O O
0.062 NN O O
microgram/kg/h NN O O
by NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
pentagastrin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
the NN O O
inhibition NN O O
was NN O O
surmounted NN O O
suggesting NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
competitive NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O O
. NN O O

Nifedipine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Oxo NN O I-OUT
meal NN O I-OUT
stimulated NN O I-OUT
gastrin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
nor NN O O
did NN O O
it NN O O
affect NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
gastrin NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
stimulated NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gastrin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Zollinger-Ellison NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
transmembrane NN O O
flux NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O O
ions NN O O
being NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
basal NN O O
and NN O O
pentagastrin NN O I-PAR
stimulated NN O I-PAR
acid NN O I-PAR
secretion NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3602327)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
trihexyphenidyl NN O I-INT
on NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3673207)

Pre-exposure NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
purified NN O I-INT
chick NN O I-INT
embryo NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
culture NN O I-INT
rabies NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
human NN O I-INT
diploid NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
serological NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-PAR
responses NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
reactions NN O O
and NN O O
neutralizing NN O O
antibody NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
pre-exposure NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
purified NN O I-INT
chick NN O I-INT
embryo NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
culture NN O I-INT
rabies NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCECV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
human NN O I-INT
diploid NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
rabies NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDCSV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
177 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Antibody NN O I-OUT
kinetics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
persistence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
virtually NN O O
identical NN O O
after NN O O
PCECV NN O I-INT
and NN O O
HDCSV NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
antibody NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
titres NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
( NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
1.0 NN O O
ml NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
schedule NN O O
of NN O O
immunization NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
schedule NN O O
of NN O O
immunization NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
ultimately NN O O
evoked NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
titres NN O I-OUT
21 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
final NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
antibody NN O O
persisted NN O O
equally NN O O
well NN O O
over NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
schedule NN O O
. NN O O

Neutralizing NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
intradermal NN O O
( NN O O
i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
vaccination NN O O
with NN O O
0.1 NN O O
ml NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
1.0 NN O O
ml NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

on NN O O
days NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
the NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
personal NN O O
or NN O O
family NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
atopy NN O O
developed NN O O
urticarial NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
PCECV NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
vaccines NN O O
were NN O O
otherwise NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3715614)

[ NN O O
Randomized NN O O
cooperative NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
gland NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (371644)

Management NN O O
of NN O O
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
coronary NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
calcium-antagonist NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
frequent NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
attributed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
vasospasm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
48-hour NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
verapamil NN O I-INT
480 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
alternately NN O O
during NN O O
4 NN O O
randomised NN O O
48-hour NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Transient NN O I-OUT
ischaemic NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
documented NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
run-in NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
periods NN O O
were NN O O
128 NN O O
, NN O O
123 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
130 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.006 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
drug NN O O
therefore NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
frequent NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3741313)

High NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anger NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
correlates NN O I-INT
and NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3803417)

Acipimox NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperlipidaemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Fredrickson NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
IIb NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
hyperlipidaemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
satisfactory NN O I-PAR
lipid NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
acipimox NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
acipimox NN O I-INT
, NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
three NN O O
month NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
acipimox NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.74 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
most NN O O
marked NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
whose NN O O
initial NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
3 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
confidence NN O O
limits NN O O
0.18 NN O O
, NN O O
1.82 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Acipimox NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (380614)

Clofibrate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
hypoglycaemic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
maturity-onset NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
hypoglycaemic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
entered NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
periods NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
g/day NN O O
; NN O O
period NN O O
B NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
thirteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
reasonably NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
post-prandial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
nor NN O O
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
glycosuria NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
M-value NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
diabetes NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
glycosuria NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
M-value NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
19-23 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
5 NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
maturity-onset NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
adequately NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
hypoglycaemic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (387204)

5 NN O O
FU NN O O
infusion NN O O
with NN O O
mitomycin-C NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
FU NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
methyl-CCNU NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
Southwest NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Southwest NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
SWOG NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stomach NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pancreas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
monthly NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
96-hour NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
with NN O O
either NN O O
bolus NN O I-INT
mitomycin-C NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
methyl-CCNU NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mitomycin-C NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methyl-CCNU NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
every NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
FU-mitomycin NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
a NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
disseminated NN O O
stomach NN O O
and NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
FU NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methyl-CCNU NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
stomach NN O O
and NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
tumors NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
limbs NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
tumor NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
gastric NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
FU-mitomycin NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
25 NN O O
weeks NN O O
vs. NN O O
18 NN O O
weeks NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
FU-METHYL-CCNU NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
pancreatic NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
mitomycin NN O O
limb NN O O
was NN O O
19 NN O O
weeks NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
17 NN O O
weeks NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
methyl-CCNU NN O I-INT
program NN O O
. NN O O

Leukopenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
course NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
limb NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
characteristic NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
FU NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
alter NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dismal NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
advanced NN O O
upper NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
neoplasms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3884411)

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
senile NN O I-OUT
dementia NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cerebrovascular NN O O
insufficiency NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
buflomedil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dihydrogenated NN O I-INT
ergot NN O I-INT
alkaloids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Seventy-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
comparative NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
buflomedil NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dihydrogenated NN O I-INT
ergot NN O I-INT
alkaloids NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
senile NN O I-OUT
dementia NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cerebrovascular NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
psychometric NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
buflomedil NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tests NN O O
became NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
causing NN O O
no NN O O
marked NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
buflomedil NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
dihydrogenated NN O O
ergot NN O O
alkaloids NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
senile NN O I-OUT
dementia NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cerebrovascular NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
could NN O O
prove NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
long-term NN O O
therapy NN O O
if NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
trend NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3886510)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
pirprofen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
naproxen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gonarthrosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coxarthrosis NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3895875)

Prophylactic NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
suspected NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
seen NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
204 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Lidocaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
prevent NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
warning NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lidocaine NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
10 NN O O
minutes NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
administration NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lidocaine NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
beta-blocking NN O O
agents NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
not NN O O
on NN O O
beta NN O O
blocking NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
1-hour NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
died NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
asystole NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
had NN O O
had NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
advocate NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
prophylactically NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
suspected NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3923528)

New NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
in NN O O
attention NN O I-PAR
deficit NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (392623)

Controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
labor NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
vaginal NN O O
suppositories NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
84 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
39-43 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
labor NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
vaginal NN O O
suppositories NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
inert NN O I-INT
material NN O I-INT
or NN O O
either NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
suppositories NN O O
were NN O O
self-administered NN O O
every NN O O
two NN O O
hours NN O O
during NN O O
waking NN O O
hours NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
successive NN O O
days NN O O
until NN O O
labor NN O O
started NN O O
or NN O O
15 NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Side-effects NN O O
were NN O O
absent NN O O
. NN O O

Labor NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
established NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
48 NN O O
hr NN O O
of NN O O
insertion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
suppository NN O O
in NN O O
9.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
65.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
PGE2 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
PGE2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PGE2 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
2.0 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
PGE2 NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
acceptable NN O O
method NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inducing NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
term NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (396063)

Haemodynamic NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
antagonism NN O I-INT
in NN O O
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
antagonistic NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
microgram NN O O
min-1 NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
agonistic NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
microgram NN O O
min-1 NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
) NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
saralasin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
alone NN O O
was NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
inadequate NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
pattern NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

Pre-saralasin NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O I-INT
axis NN O I-INT
was NN O O
varied NN O O
with NN O O
salt NN O O
intake NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
290 NN O O
mmol NN O O
of NN O O
Na+/day NN O O
) NN O O
each NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
influence NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
. NN O O

Antagonist NN O O
blockade NN O O
after NN O O
low NN O O
salt NN O O
lowered NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
plasma NN O O
renin NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
rose NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
dropped NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

Decreases NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
saralasin NN O O
and NN O O
even NN O O
with NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O O
axis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
response NN O O
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
angiotensin NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
5 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
played NN O O
a NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O O
salt NN O O
restriction NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

6 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
sarcalasin NN O O
. NN O O

7 NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
pre- NN O O
( NN O O
antagonist/agonist NN O O
) NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (396086)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
150 NN O O
, NN O O
300 NN O O
, NN O O
600 NN O O
and NN O O
900 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Labetalol NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
mean NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
extent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
seventh NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
standing NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
inhibition NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
and NN O O
upright NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

Labetalol NN O I-INT
exerted NN O O
a NN O O
net NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
basal NN O O
renin NN O O
values NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
already NN O O
maximal NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
during NN O O
standing NN O O
it NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
evident NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

Urinary NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
fashion NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
largely NN O O
independent NN O O
fashion NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
largely NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
renin NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
fell NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
2-3 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
basal NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
retentive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
labetalol NN O O
on NN O O
sodium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
directly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
successive NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
escape NN O I-OUT
might NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
either NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
volume NN O O
( NN O O
indirectly NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
packed NN O O
cell NN O O
volume NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
aldosterone NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3962622)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
disinfectant NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
eye NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
105 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
pre-operatively NN O O
with NN O O
polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PVP-I NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
disinfectant NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
consecutive NN O O
bacterial NN O O
cultures NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
before NN O O
initiating NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
99 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
only NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
disinfection NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
eye NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
Terramycin NN O I-INT
cum NN O I-INT
polymyxin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
sac NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cultures NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
sac NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
principally NN O O
showed NN O O
growth NN O O
of NN O O
Staph NN O O
. NN O O

albus NN O O
and NN O O
Staph NN O O
. NN O O

aureus NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
minor NN O O
degree NN O O
diphtheroids NN O O
( NN O O
Corynebacterium NN O O
species NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Proteus NN O O
mirabilis NN O O
, NN O O
Escherichia NN O O
coli NN O O
and NN O O
micrococci NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
quantitative NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
bacteria NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
PVP-I NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Concerning NN O O
the NN O O
growth NN O O
of NN O O
Staph NN O O
. NN O O

albus NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
almost NN O O
one NN O O
third NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
bacteria NN O O
were NN O O
almost NN O O
eliminated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
PVP-I NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
we NN O O
disclosed NN O O
no NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
post-operatively NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
PVP-I NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
disinfectant NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
agent NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
constitute NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
pre-operative NN O I-OUT
antimicrobial NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
taking NN O O
into NN O O
consideration NN O O
the NN O O
broad NN O O
antimicrobial NN O O
spectrum NN O O
of NN O O
PVP-I NN O I-INT
shown NN O O
by NN O O
other NN O O
authors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3998250)

Psychophysiological NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pharmacological NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
agoraphobia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (418433)

PRL-8-53 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
subsequent NN O O
retention NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
psychotropic NN O I-INT
agent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
3- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2-benzylmethylaminoethyl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
benzoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
methyl NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRL-8-53 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
on NN O O
retention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
serial NN O O
anticipation NN O O
method NN O O
under NN O O
double-blind NN O O
conditions NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
PRL-8-53 NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
slight NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
acquisition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Retinetion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
improved NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
degree NN O O
( NN O O
most NN O O
P NN O O
values NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
drug NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
values NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4404700)

Auditory NN O I-OUT
signal NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
paranoid NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nonparanoid NN O I-PAR
schizophrenics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (4407133)

Letter NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Cephaloridine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (4605864)

[ NN O I-INT
Pivampicillin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
uro-genital NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
gynaecological NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4938245)

Persistent NN O I-PAR
phenothiazine NN O I-PAR
dyskinesia NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tetrabenazine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
phenothiazine NN O I-PAR
dyskinesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
tetrabenazine NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
divided NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
the NN O O
abnormal NN O O
movements NN O O
were NN O O
abolished NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
others NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
some NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
control NN O O
. NN O O

Tetrabenazine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
persistent NN O O
phenothiazine NN O O
dyskinesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4949377)

Miotics NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (5052446)

Sequential NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
progress NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (5090759)

Psychiatric NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
eczema NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
eczema NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allotted NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
dermatological NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-INT
dermatological NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
psychiatric NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
limited NN O O
where NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Cases NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
at NN O O
six-monthly NN O O
dermatological NN O O
assessments NN O O
, NN O O
57 NN O O
( NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
overt NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
disturbance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
psychophysiological NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
preceding NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
motivation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
it NN O O
, NN O O
brief NN O O
psychiatric NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
improves NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
eczema NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
clear NN O O
at NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
about NN O O
doubled NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
absence NN O O
such NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
worsen NN O I-OUT
it NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (5341828)

Long-term NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Effects NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
lipids NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (550796)

Propranolol NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
double-masked NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (5512598)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
progressive NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
autonomic NN O I-INT
processes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (6108264)

A NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
terfenadine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hay NN O O
fever NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
substitution NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
non-responders NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
terfenadine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
110 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
hay NN O I-PAR
fever NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
novel NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
escape NN O O
envelope NN O O
containing NN O O
a NN O O
reference NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
which NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
under NN O O
controlled NN O O
conditions NN O O
if NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
experienced NN O O
no NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
opened NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
envelope NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Terfenadine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hay NN O O
fever NN O O
and NN O O
produced NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6108319)

Double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
ketazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diazepam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
once-a-day NN O O
vs NN O O
t.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

dosing NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
ketazolam NN O I-INT
given NN O O
once-a-day NN O O
with NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
given NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
given NN O O
either NN O O
once NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
in NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
anxious NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
ketazolam NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
alleviating NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
several NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
diazepam NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
ketazolam NN O I-INT
dropped NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
due NN O O
to NN O O
ineffective NN O O
medication NN O O
than NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
3 NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
lowest NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ketazolam NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
particular NN O O
note NN O O
, NN O O
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
often NN O O
by NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
as NN O O
by NN O O
ketazolam NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6122555)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
metipranolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
butizide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
torrat NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Kenyan NN O I-PAR
Africans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6350412)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
on NN O O
pressure NN O O
after NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
drop NN O O
of NN O O
depot-pilocarpine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
medium-term NN O O
action NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
clinical NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
emulsion NN O O
containing NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
polymer NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Polym NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compound NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
salt NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Plc NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
long NN O I-PAR
acting NN O I-PAR
pilocarpine-complex NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
protocol NN O O
was NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
stages NN O O
: NN O O
Stage NN O O
1 NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
treatment NN O O
where NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
drop NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
drop NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Polym NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
drop NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Plc NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
observed NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
without NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
and NN O O
nycthemeral NN O O
graph NN O O
curves NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Stage NN O O
2 NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
medium NN O O
term NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
Stage NN O O
1 NN O O
were NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
another NN O O
28 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
40 NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
patients NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
table NN O O
of NN O O
random NN O O
numbers NN O O
. NN O O

Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
during NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
cross-overed NN O O
again NN O O
during NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Stage NN O O
3 NN O O
: NN O O
finally NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
patient NN O O
could NN O O
choose NN O O
his NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
either NN O O
Polym NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Plc NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
rest NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
polymer NN O O
complex NN O O
( NN O O
Polym NN O O
) NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
this NN O O
being NN O O
consistant NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
slow NN O O
release NN O O
pattern NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
around-the-clock NN O O
control NN O O
than NN O O
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
accomplished NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
applications NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
necessary NN O O
applications NN O O
of NN O O
Plc NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
half NN O O
daily NN O O
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
with NN O O
Polym NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
medium NN O O
term NN O O
results NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacity NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
survey NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
patients NN O O
preferred NN O O
Polym NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Plc NN O I-INT
when NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
. NN O O

Throughout NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Visual NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
characteristic NN O O
of NN O O
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
eye-drops NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
salt NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
to NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
polymer NN O I-INT
complex NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6374683)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
aqueous NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
pressurized NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
of NN O O
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
seasonal NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
compare NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
aqueous NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
pressurized NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
aqueous NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
steroid NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
may NN O O
prefer NN O O
an NN O O
aqueous NN O O
product NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6376144)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
sufferers NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
extrinsic NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
hypersensitivity NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
synthetic NN O I-INT
anticholinergic NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
metered NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
inhaler NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
comprised NN O O
three NN O O
3-week NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
, NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
record NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
and NN O O
third NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
received NN O O
3 NN O O
X NN O O
2 NN O O
inhalations NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
medical NN O O
staff NN O O
was NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
aerosol NN O O
( NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
run-in NN O O
clinical NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

Asymptomatic NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
relatively NN O O
infrequent NN O O
and NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

Functional NN O O
studies NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
cross-over NN O O
periods NN O O
showed NN O O
flow-rate NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
close NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
treatment NN O O
either NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
oxitropium NN O I-INT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
for NN O O
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
run-in NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
non-trial NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O O
values NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
oxitropium NN O O
did NN O O
cause NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RV/TLC NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6390445)

Treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intravesical NN O I-PAR
instillation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adriamycin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intravesical NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
adriamycin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
extensively NN O O
employed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
decade NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
complete NN O O
responses NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
about NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
probably NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
or NN O O
diffuse NN O O
low NN O O
stage NN O O
transitional NN O O
cell NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
too NN O O
extensive NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
completely NN O O
resected NN O O
by NN O O
conventional NN O O
transurethral NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
such NN O O
circumstances NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
, NN O O
adriamycin NN O I-INT
compares NN O O
favorably NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
local NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
intravesical NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
Adriamycin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
more NN O O
extensively NN O O
. NN O O

Preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
implemented NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC NN O O
Urological NN O O
Group NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
adriamycin NN O I-INT
instillations NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
TUR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Systemic NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
virtually NN O O
absent NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
drug-related NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
ever NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Chemical NN O I-OUT
cystitis NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
occasionally NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
if NN O O
multiple NN O O
instillations NN O O
are NN O O
started NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
TUR NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
previous NN O O
irradiation NN O O
or NN O O
bacterial NN O O
cystitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6403413)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
melphalan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cis-platinum NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
hexamethylmelamine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O O
May NN O I-PAR
1978 NN O I-PAR
until NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
1980 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
169 NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
epithelial NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
entered NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
hexamethylmelamine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Adriamycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cis-platinum NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eleven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
another NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
response NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
153 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
there NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
30.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-OUT
responders NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
surgically NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
6 NN O O
partial NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
HAC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
melphalan-platinum NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
37.8 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
34.6 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
diameter NN O O
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
2 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
exerted NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
response NN O O
-- NN O O
47.8 NN O O
vs NN O O
24.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
47 NN O O
complete NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
14.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
relapsed NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
of NN O O
44+ NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
158 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
90 NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
died NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
27.9 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O I-INT
HAC NN O I-INT
= NN O O
26.4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
melphalan-platinum NN O I-INT
= NN O O
29.6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
, NN O O
FIGO NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
histologic NN O O
grade NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
residual NN O O
disease NN O O
all NN O O
exerted NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
survival NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Second-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
failures NN O O
was NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

Hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
melphalan-platinum NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
severe NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
minor NN O O
and NN O O
infrequent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6420374)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
trauma NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
whole-body NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
parenterally-fed NN O I-PAR
undernourished NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ten NN O I-PAR
undernourished NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
parenteral NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
restarted NN O O
on NN O O
intravenous NN O O
feeds NN O O
identical NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
pre-operative NN O O
regimens NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
, NN O O
chosen NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
, NN O O
received NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
1-2 NN O I-INT
units NN O I-INT
insulin/kg NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
weight/24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
feed NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
five NN O O
received NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
feed NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pre-operatively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
commencing NN O O
their NN O O
post-operative NN O O
feeds NN O O
, NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
whole-body NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
breakdown NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
9-h NN O O
period NN O O
following NN O O
intravenous NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
tracer NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
15N-glycine NN O I-INT
by NN O O
the NN O O
ammonia NN O O
and NN O O
urea NN O O
end-product NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
these NN O O
9-h NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
made NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
ammonia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3-methylhistidine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
rose NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
increment NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
when NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

Apparent NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
positive NN O O
pre-operatively NN O O
and NN O O
became NN O O
less NN O O
so NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
whether NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
post-operative NN O O
increments NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ammonia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3-methylhistidine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Protein NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
ammonia NN O I-OUT
end-product NN O I-OUT
method NN O O
, NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
rise NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
increases NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
urea NN O O
end-product NN O O
method NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
whole-body NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
modifying NN O O
protein NN O O
metabolic NN O O
losses NN O O
after NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6667628)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
bendrofluazide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bumetanide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
xipamide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
triple NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-INT
diuretic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
bendrofluazide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
bumetanide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
xipamide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
place NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
decrease NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
xipamide NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
taking NN O O
bumetanide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Only NN O O
minor NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6721970)

General NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pre-eclampsia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
and NN O O
hepatic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
Caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
enflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
0.24 NN O I-PAR
MAC-h NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
halothane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
0.23 NN O I-PAR
MAC-h NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pre-eclampsia-eclampsia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
pre-eclamptic NN O O
or NN O O
normal NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Metabolism NN O O
of NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
inorganic NN O I-OUT
fluoride NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
max NN O O
15 NN O O
mumol NN O O
litre NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
toxic NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
important NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
preoperative NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
reductive NN O O
metabolites NN O O
of NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pre-eclampsia NN O I-PAR
there NN O O
appears NN O O
no NN O O
contraindication NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
enflurane NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
, NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
as NN O O
volatile NN O O
supplements NN O O
during NN O O
general NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (6729651)

High-dose NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
fractionation NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
schedules NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
83 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
employing NN O I-PAR
external NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
one NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
used NN O O
routinely NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
department NN O O
, NN O O
employed NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
daily NN O O
fractionation NN O O
schedule NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
high-dose NN O O
weekly NN O O
fractionation NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
techniques NN O O
are NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Dose NN O O
distribution NN O O
curves NN O O
in NN O O
cross-section NN O O
and NN O O
midsagittal NN O O
planes NN O O
are NN O O
shown NN O O
and NN O O
calculations NN O O
or NN O O
equivalent NN O O
doses NN O O
at NN O O
various NN O O
selected NN O O
points NN O O
using NN O O
Ellis NN O O
's NN O O
nominal NN O O
single-dose NN O O
formula NN O O
are NN O O
tabulated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
2-year NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
figures NN O O
were NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
fractionation NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
weekly NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
regimen NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
weekly NN O O
schedule NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
differences NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Late NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
weekly NN O O
fractionation NN O O
regimen NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
figures NN O O
quoted NN O O
by NN O O
other NN O O
authors NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O O
control NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
irradiated NN O O
volume NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
fractionation NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6734073)

Short-term NN O O
studies NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
osmotic NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
continuous NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
peritoneal NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
osmotic NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
concentrations NN O O
( NN O O
92 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
and NN O O
272 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
peritoneal NN O O
dialysis NN O O
fluid NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
peritoneal NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
( NN O O
76 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
and NN O O
215 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
calorific NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
absorbed NN O O
osmotic NN O O
agent NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
isotonic NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
hypertonic NN O O
solutions NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
place NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
glycerol NN O O
provided NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
ultrafiltration NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
glucose NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
concentration NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
initial NN O O
osmotic NN O O
pressure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
glycerol-based NN O O
solutions NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
glycerol NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
equal NN O I-OUT
ultrafiltration NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
offset NN O O
any NN O O
calorific NN O O
advantage NN O O
. NN O O

Equilibration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slower NN O O
and NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
with NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Solutions NN O O
containing NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
initially NN O O
less NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
pH NN O O
6.5 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
containing NN O O
glucose NN O O
( NN O O
pH NN O O
5.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
glycerol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
physiological NN O O
range NN O O
with NN O O
glucose NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
osmotic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
reached NN O O
a NN O O
peak NN O O
80-fold NN O O
greater NN O O
at NN O O
4.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
during NN O O
dialysis NN O O
with NN O O
fluid NN O O
containing NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
272 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
and NN O O
eightfold NN O O
higher NN O O
at NN O O
0.42 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.09 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
with NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
92 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
haemolysis NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
other NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
these NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
glucose-based NN O O
solutions NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Circulating NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pyruvate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non-esterified NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ketone NN O I-OUT
bodies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
these NN O O
short-term NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
no NN O O
conclusive NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
over NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
on NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
will NN O O
determine NN O O
its NN O O
future NN O O
role NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
osmotic NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
continuous NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
peritoneal NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6752752)

[ NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
hyperkinetic NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarct NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
ergometric NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6756508)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
plus NN O O
sequential NN O O
CMF NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
versus NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
estrogen NN O I-PAR
receptors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ER NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
unknown NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
assess NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
sequentially NN O I-INT
adding NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CMF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
responders NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
ER NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
12-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
ER NN O O
positive NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
did NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
ER NN O O
were NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
further NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
alone NN O O
vs NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
CMF NN O O
was NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
ER NN O O
positive NN O O
and NN O O
ER NN O O
unknown NN O O
patients NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
and NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
plus NN O O
CMF NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
inability NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
ER NN O O
status NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
prejudice NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
benefit NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
CMF NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6764321)

Two NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-OUT
open NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
glaucoma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
present NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
comparing NN O O
both NN O O
guanethidine NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
cent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
adrenaline NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
cent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Ganda NN O I-INT
3.0/0.5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
guanethidine NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
cent NN O I-INT
and NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
cent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Ganda NN O I-INT
1.0/0.2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
single NN O O
drop NN O O
form NN O O
with NN O O
Timolol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Timoptol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
cent NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
of NN O O
48-hour NN O O
phasing NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
's NN O O
treatment NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
Ganda NN O I-INT
3.0/0.5 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
9.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
Timolol NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
cent NN O I-INT
( NN O O
7.67 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
Ganda NN O I-INT
1.0/0.2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8.87 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Timolol NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
cent NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8.24 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (688257)

Adriamycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chlorambucil NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
thiabendazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
extensive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non-small NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-PAR
Southwest NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (698606)

Ambulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
labour NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
68 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
half NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O I-INT
ambulant NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
half NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
recumbent NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ambulant NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
recumbent NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Apgar NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
five NN O O
minutes NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ambulant NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
recumbent NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
augmentations NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
oxytocic NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Ambulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
labour NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
encouraged NN O O
: NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
bring NN O O
human NN O O
benefits NN O O
while NN O O
allowing NN O O
the NN O O
advantages NN O O
of NN O O
hospital NN O O
supervision NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7053590)

Laser NN O I-INT
conization NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
cold NN O I-INT
knife NN O I-INT
conization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
measured NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
at NN O O
conization NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
cold NN O I-INT
knife NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
scalpel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
laser NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
55 NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
4.6 NN O O
milliliters NN O O
at NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
30.1 NN O O
milliliters NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cold NN O I-INT
knife NN O I-INT
group NN O O
of NN O O
55 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
important NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
figures NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.4 NN O O
to NN O O
155.4 NN O O
milliliters NN O O
and NN O O
5.6 NN O O
to NN O O
1,570.9 NN O O
milliliters NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.8 NN O O
per NN O O
cet NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
laser NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
14.6 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cold NN O I-INT
knife NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.015 NN O O
-- NN O O
Fischer NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

Conization NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
premalignant NN O I-PAR
changes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
uteri NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
probably NN O O
remain NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
come NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
our NN O O
opinion NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
, NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
conization NN O O
will NN O O
replace NN O O
cold NN O I-INT
knife NN O I-INT
conization NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7104637)

Intraoperative NN O I-INT
microscopy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
bile NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
it NN O O
useful NN O O
? NN O O
Direct NN O I-INT
microscopy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bile NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
111 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
wound NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

Bacteria NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
exploration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
bile NN O I-PAR
duct NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
antibiotic NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
there NN O O
was NN O O
one NN O O
wound NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
developed NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
bile NN O O
duct NN O O
was NN O O
explored NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
83 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
microscopy NN O O
and NN O O
culture NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bile NN O O
for NN O O
bacteria NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
sepsis NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
bacteria NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
microscopy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
by NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-PAR
microscopy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bile NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7272152)

Single NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O I-PAR
oesophageal NN O I-PAR
sphincter NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
oesophageal NN O I-OUT
sphincter NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LOSP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
oesophageal NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
transducers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Atropine NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
LOSP NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

injection NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Metoclopramide NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
LOSP NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
for NN O O
40 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
consecutive NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
predominated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7381634)

Is NN O O
anti-Pseudomonas NN O O
therapy NN O O
warranted NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
A NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
indications NN O O
for NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
exacerbations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
CF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
cloxacillin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
carbenicillin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
for NN O O
ten NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
were NN O O
constant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
respects NN O O
and NN O O
Pseudomonas NN O I-PAR
aeruginosa NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
predominant NN O I-PAR
sputum NN O I-PAR
pathogen NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
radiograph NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bacteriologic NN O I-OUT
flora NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
anti-Pseudomonas NN O O
medication NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
always NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
observations NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
blind-controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
larger NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
mild NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
severe NN O O
respiratory NN O O
involvement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7527453)

Comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
autologous NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
transplantation NN O O
with NN O O
sequential NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
intermediate-grade NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high-grade NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
464 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Groupe NN O O
d'Etude NN O O
des NN O O
Lymphomes NN O O
de NN O O
l'Adulte NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Intensive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
autotransplantation NN O O
has NN O O
given NN O O
promising NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
partially NN O O
responding NN O O
or NN O O
sensitive NN O O
relapsed NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
1987 NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
carmustine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
autotransplantation NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
consolidative NN O I-INT
sequential NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
asparaginase NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cytarabine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
first NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
with NN O O
intermediate- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high-grade NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O I-PAR
prognostic NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Induction NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LNH84 NN O O
protocol NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
randomization NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
anthracycline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
further NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
consolidation NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
induction NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
464 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
consolidation NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sequential NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
autologous NN O O
transplant NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.46 NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
= NN O O
0.90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
sequential NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
autotransplantation NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.60 NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
= NN O O
1.11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
For NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
consolidation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
CBV NN O O
regimen NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
autologous NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
transplantation NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
sequential NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7540705)

Randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
beta-sitosterol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Beta-sitosterol NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O O
treatments NN O O
have NN O O
become NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
benign NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
alpha-receptor NN O O
blocking NN O O
agents NN O O
and NN O O
5-alpha-reductase NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
. NN O O

Drugs NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
plants NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
no NN O O
precise NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
described NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
purpose NN O O
in NN O O
Europe NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
multicentre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
either NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
beta-sitosterol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
which NN O O
contains NN O O
a NN O O
mixture NN O O
of NN O O
phytosterols NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
end-point NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
modified NN O O
Boyarsky NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
secondary NN O O
end-points NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Prostate NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IPSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Modified NN O I-OUT
Boyarsky NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
-6.7 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
4.0 NN O O
) NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
beta-sitosterol-treated NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
-2.1 NN O O
( NN O O
3.2 NN O O
) NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
IPSS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-7.4 NN O O
[ NN O O
3.8 NN O O
] NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
beta-sitosterol-treated NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
-2.1 NN O O
[ NN O O
3.8 NN O O
] NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
beta-sitosterol NN O O
treatment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15.2 NN O O
[ NN O O
5.7 NN O O
] NN O O
mL/s NN O O
from NN O O
9.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
2.5 NN O O
] NN O O
mL/s NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
30.4 NN O O
[ NN O O
39.9 NN O O
] NN O O
mL NN O O
from NN O O
65.8 NN O O
[ NN O O
20.8 NN O O
] NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
parameters NN O O
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
relevant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
prostatic NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
show NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
beta-sitosterol NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
benign NN O O
prostatic NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7552649)

Active NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
observer-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
new NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
disabling NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LBP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
seems NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
emphasize NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
dealing NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
total NN O O
situation NN O O
in NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
programs NN O O
-- NN O O
the NN O O
bio-psycho-social NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
programs NN O O
are NN O O
expensive NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
outcome NN O O
from NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
active NN O O
programs NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
return-to-work NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sick NN O I-OUT
leave NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
health-care NN O I-OUT
contacts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
staying NN O I-OUT
physically NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
132 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
123 NN O I-PAR
started NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
programs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
LBP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
programs NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
full-time NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
3-week NN O I-INT
multidisciplinary NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ergonomic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
psychological NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
24h NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
psychological NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
24h NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
presented NN O O
here NN O O
are NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
shows NN O O
an NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
initial NN O O
examination NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
evaluation NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
observer NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
program NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O O
intensive NN O O
programs NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
return-to-work NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
health-care NN O O
contacts NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
disability NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
staying NN O O
physically NN O O
active NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7572690)

Reducing NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
events NN O O
: NN O O
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Scandinavian NN O O
Simvastatin NN O O
Survival NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
4S NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Scandinavian NN O O
Simvastatin NN O O
Survival NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
4S NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
reduction NN O O
with NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4,444 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
213-310 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5.5-8.0 NN O I-PAR
mmol/liter NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lipid-lowering NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Over NN O O
the NN O O
5.4 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
simvastatin NN O O
produced NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
-25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
-35 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
+8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
256 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
182 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
simvastatin NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

Noncardiovascular NN O I-OUT
causes NN O I-OUT
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
49 NN O O
and NN O O
46 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
simvastatin NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
622 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
431 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
simvastatin NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.00001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
risk NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
subgroups NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
sexes NN O I-PAR
aged NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.00001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
undergoing NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Simvastatin NN O O
was NN O O
beneficial NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
or NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
smokers NN O O
or NN O O
had NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7593698)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
herbal-based NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
plaque NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gingivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
herbal-based NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
plaque NN O O
and NN O O
gingivitis NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gingivitis NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
6-week NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
natural NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
probing NN O I-PAR
depths NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
plaque NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
balanced NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
measured NN O O
: NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
vitality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
crevicular NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
reductions NN O O
within NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
herbal NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
conventionally NN O I-INT
formulated NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
plaque NN O O
and NN O O
gingivitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7598920)

Hemodynamic NN O O
effects NN O O
during NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
laryngoscopy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
intubation NN O O
with NN O O
eltanolone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
beta-pregnanolone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
ASA NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
changes NN O O
following NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
laryngoscopy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
intubation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
bolus NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
eltanolone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
General NN O O
operating NN O O
theaters NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
university NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
premedicated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
temazepam NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg. NN O I-INT
Anesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
eltanolone NN O I-INT
0.58 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
1.7 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
neuromuscular NN O I-INT
blockade NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
achieved NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
vecuronium NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
maintained NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
enflurane NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
67 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
automatic NN O I-OUT
oscillometric NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ECG NN O O
, NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
pulse NN O O
oximetry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Q NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
thoracic NN O O
bioimpedance NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
eltanolone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Q NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
. NN O O

Systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unaltered NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
laryngoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
intubation NN O O
, NN O O
SAP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DAP NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
SVR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
increased NN O O
; NN O O
SV NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
eltanolone NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
apnea NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
seconds NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
involuntary NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
hypertonus NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
incidence NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
pain NN O O
following NN O O
injection NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
eltanolone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
changes NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
HR NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
eltanolone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7608035)

Brief NN O O
report NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
auditory NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7608801)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vancomycin NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
adding NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CVC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
flush NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
would NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
bacteremia NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
luminal NN O O
colonization NN O O
with NN O O
vancomycin-susceptible NN O O
organisms NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Fifty-five NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
parenteral NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
CVC NN O I-INT
flush NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
heparin-vancomycin NN O I-INT
CVC NN O I-INT
flush NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
9158 NN O O
catheter NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heparin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
15.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heparin-vancomycin NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
bacteremia NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
luminal NN O O
colonization NN O O
with NN O O
vancomycin-susceptible NN O O
organisms NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.43 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bacteremia NN O I-OUT
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
luminal NN O O
colonization NN O O
with NN O O
vancomycin-susceptible NN O O
organisms NN O O
were NN O O
0.6/1000 NN O O
catheter NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heparin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
1.4/1000 NN O O
catheter NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heparin-vancomycin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bacteremia NN O I-OUT
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
luminal NN O O
colonization NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
vancomycin-susceptible NN O O
organism NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
survival NN O O
estimates NN O O
. NN O O

Streptococcus NN O I-OUT
viridans NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
luminal NN O O
colonization NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
vancomycin NN O O
to NN O O
heparin NN O O
CVC NN O O
flush NN O O
solution NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
bacteremia NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
vancomycin-susceptible NN O O
organisms NN O O
. NN O O

Bacteremia NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
Streptococcus NN O O
viridans NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
CVC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7646610)

Paracervical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
outpatient NN O I-OUT
hysteroscopy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventy-seven NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
excessive NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
before NN O O
hysteroscopy NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
hysteroscopy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
endometrial NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
paracervical NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
87 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
assessed NN O O
lower NN O O
abdominal NN O O
and NN O O
pelvic NN O O
pain NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
10-point NN O O
linear NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
at NN O O
hysteroscopy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
5.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
at NN O O
endometrial NN O O
biopsy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
87 NN O O
subjects NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
paracervical NN O O
block NN O O
versus NN O O
4.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.2 NN O O
and NN O O
5.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
90 NN O O
women NN O O
not NN O O
given NN O O
local NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Paracervical NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
routine NN O O
outpatient NN O I-OUT
hysteroscopy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
be NN O O
superfluous NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7650233)

Does NN O O
tetanus NN O I-INT
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
tetanus-diphtheria NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
? NN O O
A NN O O
comparative NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
wounds NN O O
, NN O O
sometimes NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
give NN O O
an NN O O
adult-type NN O O
tetanus-diphtheria NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Td NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
plus NN O O
tetanus NN O I-INT
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TIG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sixty NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
immunized NN O I-PAR
against NN O I-PAR
tetanus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diphtheria NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
intramuscularly NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
Td NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Td NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
TIG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
simultaneously NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Antitoxin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Circulating NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
enzyme-linked NN O I-OUT
immunosorbent NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ELISA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
cutoff NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
tests NN O O
was NN O O
0.1 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
. NN O O

Titers NN O O
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
protective NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
geometric NN O O
mean NN O O
titers NN O O
( NN O O
GMT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
antibody NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
below NN O O
the NN O O
cutoff NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
assay NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
, NN O O
arbitrarily NN O O
, NN O O
0.05 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
had NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
antitoxin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
titers NN O O
above NN O O
this NN O O
limit NN O O
for NN O O
T NN O O
and NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
percentages NN O O
were NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
antitoxin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
whereas NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
had NN O O
D NN O I-OUT
antitoxin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
GMTs NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
4-week NN O O
assessment NN O O
( NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
T NN O O
and NN O O
D NN O O
antitoxin NN O O
levels NN O O
( NN O O
9.91 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
versus NN O O
5.60 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
for NN O O
T NN O O
antitoxin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.86 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
versus NN O O
1.45 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
for NN O O
D NN O O
antitoxin NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
resulted NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
0.1 NN O O
IU/mL NN O O
) NN O O
prevaccination NN O O
antibody NN O O
titers NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7679164)

Angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
suppress NN O O
plasma NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
increase NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Physical NN O O
effort NN O O
stimulates NN O O
the NN O O
reninangiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
RAS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ergometric NN O I-PAR
bicycle NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
variations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
auricular NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ANF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
angiotensin NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AII NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microalbuminuria NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
different NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pressure NN O O
profile NN O O
and NN O O
VO2 NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Exercise NN O O
stimulates NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
renin NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
action NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
: NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
blockade NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RAS NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
inhibition NN O O
was NN O O
incomplete NN O O
because NN O O
AII NN O O
levels NN O O
increased NN O O
markedly NN O O
when NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
: NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.37 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
decreased NN O O
GFR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
115 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.8 NN O O
ml/mn-1 NN O O
, NN O O
C NN O O
= NN O O
91.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
exercise NN O O
without NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
MA NN O O
. NN O O

ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
modify NN O O
the NN O O
physical NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
nonathletic NN O O
subjects NN O O
; NN O O
AII NN O O
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
exercise NN O O
despite NN O O
captopril NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
GFR NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
MA NN O O
with NN O O
prolonged NN O O
physical NN O O
effort NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7692028)

Early NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
very NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Infant NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Development NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
developmental NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
very NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1500 NN O I-PAR
gm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
heterogeneous NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
sociodemographic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Infants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
280 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1500 NN O I-PAR
gm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Infant NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Development NN O I-PAR
Program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eligibility NN O O
was NN O O
limited NN O O
primarily NN O O
by NN O O
geographic NN O I-PAR
distance NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
third NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
INT NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
thirds NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
All NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
pediatric NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
developmental NN O I-INT
surveillance NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
INT NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
center-based NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
until NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
corrected NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
assessments NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OUTCOMES NN O O
Cognitive NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Stanford-Binet NN O I-OUT
Intelligence NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Achebach NN O I-OUT
Child NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
summarizing NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O I-OUT
Status NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
General NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Ratings NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Cognitive NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
7.2 NN O O
points NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
INT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
site NN O O
, NN O O
sociodemographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
neonatal NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
9.4 NN O O
points NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
29 NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
cerebral NN O O
palsy NN O O
were NN O O
removed NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
overall NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
INT NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
weighted NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1000 NN O O
gm NN O O
at NN O O
birth NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
INT NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
slightly NN O O
higher NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
advantage NN O O
conferred NN O O
by NN O O
being NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
INT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
heavier NN O O
infants NN O O
, NN O O
extends NN O O
to NN O O
very NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7706098)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
reproducibility NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
reproducibility NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
two-group NN O O
quasi-experimental NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Convenience NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
thermodilution NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
catheter NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
place NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ages NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
66.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Thermodilution NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTERVENTION NN O O
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
initially NN O O
by NN O O
flipping NN O O
a NN O O
coin NN O O
then NN O O
into NN O O
alternate NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
supine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
had NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
45-degree NN O I-INT
upright NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
had NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
B NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
first NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
45-degree NN O I-INT
upright NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
had NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O I-INT
flat NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
had NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Seventy NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
population NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
45-degree NN O O
upright NN O O
position NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
45-degree NN O O
upright NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
flat NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
paired NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

which NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
from NN O O
-0.539 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.083 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two-group NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
, NN O O
flat NN O O
position NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
45-degree NN O O
upright NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
0 NN O O
degrees NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0083 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
at NN O O
45 NN O O
degrees NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
coexisting NN O O
variables NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
vasoconstrictors NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
variable NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
are NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
ensure NN O O
accurate NN O O
comparisons NN O O
between NN O O
consecutive NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
researchers NN O O
recommend NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
position NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
are NN O O
performed NN O O
be NN O O
documented NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
measurements NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
uniform NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7726441)

The NN O O
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
granisetron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
common NN O O
after NN O O
recovery NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
40 NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Saline NN O I-INT
or NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
approximately NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
24-h NN O O
recovery NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
24-h NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emesis-free NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
granisetron NN O O
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
granisetron NN O O
20 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
saline NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Granisetron NN O I-INT
at NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
also NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
24-h NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
24-h NN O O
postsurgery NN O O
: NN O O
49 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
antiemetics NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
granisetron NN O O
20 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
granisetron NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Granisetron NN O I-INT
given NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
or NN O O
40 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

during NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (772759)

Quantifications NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
prostaglandins NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-INT
spectrometry NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
method NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
application NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Measurement NN O O
of NN O O
7alpha-hydroxy-5,11-diketotetranoprostane-1,16-dioic NN O O
acid NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
PGE-M NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
urinary NN O O
metabolite NN O O
of NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
E1 NN O O
and NN O O
E2 NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
provides NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
indicator NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
biosynthesis NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
quantitative NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
metabolite NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
stable-isotope NN O O
dilution NN O O
techniqe NN O O
of NN O O
selected NN O I-INT
ion NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SIM NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
employed NN O O
using NN O O
gas-liquid NN O O
chromatography-mass NN O O
spectrometry NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
preparation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
D3-methyloxime NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bis-methyl NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
PGE-M NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
a NN O O
tritium NN O O
tracer NN O O
in NN O O
position NN O O
2 NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
internal NN O O
standard NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SIM NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
synthesis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
internal NN O O
standard NN O O
includes NN O O
the NN O O
biosynthetic NN O O
conversion NN O O
of NN O O
11-hydroxy-9,15-diketoprostanoic NN O O
acid NN O O
to NN O O
PGE-M NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
rabbit NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intra-assay NN O O
coefficient NN O O
of NN O O
variation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
SIM NN O O
method NN O O
ranged NN O O
between NN O O
4.0 NN O O
to NN O O
6.7 NN O O
percent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
authentic NN O O
, NN O O
underivatized NN O O
PGE-M NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
urine NN O O
was NN O O
93 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
, NN O O
n=17 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PGE-M NN O I-OUT
excreted NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
urine NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
males NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15.2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.9 NN O I-PAR
mug/24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
mug/24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
close NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
values NN O O
published NN O O
previously NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
excretion NN O O
of NN O O
PGE-M NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
sexes NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
observed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pre-pubertal NN O I-PAR
age-grou NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
2.9 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.8 NN O I-PAR
mug/24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=5 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
3.1 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.9 NN O I-PAR
mug/24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
age-group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
45-80 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
9.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.1 NN O I-PAR
mug/24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=21 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
7.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.9 NN O I-PAR
mug/24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
PGE-M NN O O
excreted NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
acetyl NN O I-INT
salicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
concomitant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
urinary NN O O
excretion NN O O
of NN O O
PGE-M NN O O
( NN O O
68 NN O O
to NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
( NN O O
n=8 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
diminished NN O O
urinary NN O O
PGE-M NN O O
output NN O O
reflects NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
E NN O O
biosynthesis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7742155)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
fasting NN O I-INT
on NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
consistently NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TSB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
fasting NN O I-INT
on NN O O
TSB NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
comprised NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
one NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
ate NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
supper NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
fasted NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
thereafter NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
ate NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
supper NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
snacks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lunch NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TSB NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
regular NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
bilirubin NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
minimum NN O I-OUT
TSB NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
supper NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
fast NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
doubled NN O I-OUT
TSB NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
bilirubin NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
TSB NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
place NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
fasting NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
TSB NN O O
of NN O O
17.3 NN O O
mumol NN O O
l-1 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fasted NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
14.0 NN O O
mumol NN O O
l-1 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-fasted NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
designing NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
selecting NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
or NN O O
judging NN O O
the NN O O
tolerance NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
TSB NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
fasting NN O O
must NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
trials NN O O
where NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
patients NN O O
fast NN O O
before NN O O
entering NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7743697)

Plasma NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
reflect NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
almost NN O O
universally NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
elevation NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
overt NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
elevation NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
levels NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
partly NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
become NN O O
evident NN O O
that NN O O
elevated NN O O
plasma NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
levels NN O O
are NN O O
directly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
prognosis NN O O
; NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
levels NN O O
> NN O O
900 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
prognosis NN O O
and NN O O
shortened NN O O
life NN O O
expectancy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
bear NN O O
little NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
physiologic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
V-HeFT NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
show NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
2-year NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
progressive NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
disease NN O O
progresses NN O O
despite NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vasodilator NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
hydralazine/isosorbide NN O I-INT
dinitrate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
that NN O O
interventions NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
progressive NN O O
neurohormonal NN O O
activation NN O O
that NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
illness NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7761019)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
a NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
betamethasone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vecuronium NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
nondepolarizing NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
relaxant NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
authors NN O O
studied NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20-54 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
sexes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mechanomyographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
single NN O I-OUT
twitch NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TOF NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ulnar NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
wrist NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
concomitant NN O I-OUT
abductor NN O I-OUT
pollicis NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
after NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
bolus NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0.08 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
single NN O I-OUT
twitch NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
0.4-0.5 NN O O
micrograms/kg/min NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
started NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
single NN O I-OUT
twitch NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vecuronium NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
stopping NN O O
infusion NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
recovery NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Corticosteroids NN O I-INT
may NN O O
interact NN O O
with NN O O
non-depolarizing NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
relaxants NN O I-INT
both NN O O
in NN O O
prejunctional NN O O
and NN O O
postjunctional NN O O
acetylcholine NN O O
receptors NN O O
by NN O O
several NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7789678)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
agents NN O O
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
injection NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O O
canine NN O O
gastric NN O O
varices NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
technical NN O I-OUT
ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
eight NN O O
different NN O O
agents NN O O
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
and NN O O
obliteration NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O O
gastric NN O O
varices NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
canine NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
no NN O O
comparative NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
gastric NN O O
variceal NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Large NN O O
bleeding NN O O
gastric NN O O
varices NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
heparinized NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
cyanoacrylate NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1:1:1 NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
tetradecyl NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ethanol NN O I-INT
98 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
ethanolamine NN O I-INT
oleate NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
morrhuate NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
tetradecyl NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
polidocanol NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
1:10,000 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
number NN O O
and NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
injections NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
complete NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
; NN O O
follow-up NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
gastric NN O O
variceal NN O O
obliteration NN O O
. NN O O

Cyanoacrylate NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
agent NN O O
overall NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
immediate NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
initial NN O I-OUT
hemostasis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
variceal NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cyanoacrylate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tetradecyl NN O I-OUT
sulfate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
polidocanol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
agents NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
gastric NN O O
variceal NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

Epinephrine NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
controlling NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
puncture NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
varices NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
needle NN O O
during NN O O
intravariceal NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O

Ongoing NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
evaluating NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
agents NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
epinephrine NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
vasoconstriction NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
secondary NN O O
bleeding NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
alcohol NN O O
, NN O O
and/or NN O O
tetradecyl NN O O
sulfate NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
variceal NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
and NN O O
sclerosis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7803065)

Health NN O O
promotion NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
prevention NN O O
for NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
opportunity NN O O
for NN O O
change NN O O
or NN O O
preaching NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
converted NN O O
? NN O O
Health NN O O
promotion NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
prevention NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
offer NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
growing NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
while NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
economic NN O O
burden NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
this NN O O
potential NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
realized NN O O
depends NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
whether NN O O
those NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
put NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
actually NN O O
use NN O O
preventive NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
when NN O O
offered NN O O
the NN O O
opportunity NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
1988 NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Financing NN O I-PAR
Administration NN O I-PAR
began NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
demonstrations NN O I-INT
to NN O O
address NN O O
health NN O O
issues NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
article NN O O
reports NN O O
on NN O O
program NN O O
participation NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
demonstration NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Over NN O I-PAR
1,900 NN O I-PAR
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
Medicare NN O I-PAR
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
fee-for-service NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
demonstration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
enrollees NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-INT
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
offered NN O O
health NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nine NN O I-PAR
hundred-seventy-three NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
938 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lengthy NN O I-PAR
telephone NN O I-PAR
interview NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
determined NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
person NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
preventive NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
973 NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
invited NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
letter NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
telephone NN O I-PAR
calls NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
attend NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
free-of-charge NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Medicare-provided NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
everyone NN O I-PAR
attended NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
17 NN O O
health NN O O
behaviors NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
attended NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
session NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
engaging NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
preventive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
were NN O O
neither NN O O
more NN O O
nor NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
the NN O O
screening NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
neither NN O O
favorable NN O O
nor NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
selection NN O O
bias NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
preventive NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7829176)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
flurbiprofen NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pupillary NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
scleral NN O I-PAR
buckling NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
pupillary NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
for NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
scleral NN O I-PAR
buckling NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
0.03 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
flurbiprofen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
miosis NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
0.03 NN O O
% NN O O
flurbiprofen NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
times NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O O
minute NN O O
intervals NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
dilation NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
pupillary NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1.88 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
1.57 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Flurbiprofen NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
pupillary NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
step NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Factors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lens NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cryo NN O I-OUT
applications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
buckle NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
flurbiprofen NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
pupillary NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Preoperative NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
flurbiprofen NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
decrease NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
miosis NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
scleral NN O I-OUT
buckling NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7840362)

Dexamethasone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
' NN O O
goal NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
DSM-III-R NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Baseline NN O O
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
scores NN O O
obtained NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
two-sample NN O O
t NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
chi-square NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Seven NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
19 NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
18 NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O O
responded NN O O
positively NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
entered NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
completed NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
brief NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
within NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
depressed NN O O
outpatients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7841058)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
audiotapes NN O I-INT
in NN O O
promoting NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Open NN O O
or NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
providing NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
audiotapes NN O I-INT
of NN O O
their NN O O
clinical NN O O
interviews NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
information NN O I-OUT
recall NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
tested NN O O
these NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
'clinician-blind NN O O
' NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
117 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
oncology NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
'bad NN O I-PAR
news NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
their NN O O
consultations NN O O
audiotaped NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blind NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinician NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
copy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
tape NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
tape NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
audiotape NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
recall NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
30-item NN O I-OUT
General NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Hospital NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
second-order NN O O
interaction NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
poor-prognosis NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
disadvantaged NN O O
specifically NN O O
by NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
audiotape NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
than NN O O
non-tape NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
audiotapes NN O I-INT
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
interviews NN O O
promotes NN O O
factual NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
reliably NN O O
reduce NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
actively NN O O
unhelpful NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7856515)

Acute NN O O
exposure NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
acid NN O I-PAR
fog NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
influence NN O O
of NN O O
breathing NN O O
pattern NN O O
on NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Concern NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
acid NN O O
fog NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
fed NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
observations NN O O
: NN O O
air NN O O
pollution NN O O
disasters NN O O
earlier NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
century NN O O
were NN O O
typically NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fog NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
current NN O O
samples NN O O
of NN O O
fog NN O O
water NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
strongly NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
acid NN O O
fog NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
lung NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
generated NN O O
a NN O O
monodisperse NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
microM NN O I-INT
MMAD NN O I-INT
aerosol NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
H2SO4 NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
pH NN O O
of NN O O
2.0 NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
nominal NN O I-INT
concentration NN O I-INT
of NN O O
500 NN O O
micrograms/m3 NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
exposed NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
alternate NN O O
days NN O O
to NN O O
acid NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
equiosmolar NN O I-INT
NaCl NN O I-INT
aerosol NN O I-INT
during NN O O
40 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
resting NN O O
ventilation NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
was NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
intense NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
oronasal NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Exposure NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
head NN O O
dome NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
head-only NN O O
exposure NN O O
device NN O O
that NN O O
permitted NN O O
continuous NN O O
measurement NN O O
( NN O O
unfettered NN O O
breathing NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
Vr NN O O
, NN O O
f NN O O
, NN O O
VE NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
and NN O O
persistence NN O O
of NN O O
oronasal NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
this NN O O
article NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
parameters NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
between-subject NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
estimated NN O O
hydrogen NN O O
ion NN O O
dose NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
airways NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
H+LAW NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
. NN O O

Physiologic NN O O
parameters NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variability NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oronasal NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tON NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
ventilation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
oronasal NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ON NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
inhaled NN O I-OUT
hydrogen NN O I-OUT
ion NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
H+ NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
environmental NN O O
parameter NN O O
, NN O O
contributed NN O O
only NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Minute NN O O
ventilation NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
transition NN O O
from NN O O
nasal NN O O
to NN O O
oronasal NN O O
breathing NN O O
varied NN O O
significantly NN O O
among NN O O
subjects NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
normalized NN O O
to NN O O
FVC NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (787788)

Vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
and NN O O
acute NN O O
illness NN O O
in NN O O
Navajo NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
earlier NN O O
observations NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
our NN O O
own NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
for NN O O
managing NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
cold NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
868 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
becoming NN O I-OUT
ill NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
133 NN O O
versus NN O O
129 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
166 NN O O
versus NN O O
159 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
versus NN O O
5.8 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
fewer NN O O
throat NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
yielding NN O O
beta-hemolytic NN O I-OUT
streptococcus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
six NN O O
versus NN O O
13 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
complicated NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24 NN O O
versus NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
ascorbic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
24 NN O O
to NN O O
26 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
supplementation NN O O
( NN O O
1.28 NN O O
versus NN O O
1.04 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
ml NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
ascorbic NN O I-PAR
acid NN O I-PAR
concentrations NN O O
had NN O O
longer NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6.8 NN O O
versus NN O O
4.0 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
or NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
upper NN O O
respiratory NN O O
illness NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7887018)

Immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
vaccinated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BCG NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
killed NN O I-PAR
leishmanial NN O I-PAR
promastigotes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
antibody NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
mycobacterial NN O O
and NN O O
leishmanial NN O O
antigens NN O O
. NN O O

Antibody NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
mycobacterial NN O O
( NN O O
BCG NN O O
; NN O O
PPD NN O O
; NN O O
Mycobacterium NN O O
leprae NN O O
soluble NN O O
antigen NN O O
, NN O O
MLSA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
leishmanial NN O O
( NN O O
Leishmania NN O O
mexicana NN O O
LV4 NN O O
) NN O O
antigens NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
208 NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
PPD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
leishmanin NN O I-PAR
skin-test NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
divided NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
follows NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
68 NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
killed NN O I-INT
promastigotes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
47 NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
47 NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
killed NN O I-INT
promastigotes NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
46 NN O I-INT
formed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
diluent NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Three NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
8-12 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Vaccinees NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
bled NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
again NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
3- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
12-month NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Skin NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
prevaccination NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
again NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
3- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
12-month NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Anti-BCG NN O O
, NN O O
anti-PPD NN O O
and NN O O
anti-MLSA NN O O
IgG NN O O
levels NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
receiving NN O O
BCG NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
leishmanial NN O O
antigen NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
BCG NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
inoculum NN O O
suppressed NN O O
the NN O O
IgG NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
Mycobacterium NN O O
tuberculosis/Mycobacterium NN O O
bovis-related NN O O
( NN O O
PPD NN O O
and NN O O
BCG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
M. NN O O
leprae-related NN O O
( NN O O
MLSA NN O O
) NN O O
-related NN O O
, NN O O
antigens NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
small NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
prevaccination NN O O
level NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
MLSA NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
BCG NN O O
or NN O O
PPD NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-BCG-vaccinated NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
background NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
mycobacterial NN O O
and NN O O
leishmanial NN O O
antigens NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Venezuelan NN O I-PAR
vaccinees NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
in NN O O
non-endemic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
British NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Responses NN O O
to NN O O
leishmanial NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
enhanced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
vaccine NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
killed NN O O
promastigotes NN O O
( NN O O
with/without NN O O
BCG NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
BCG NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Instead NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
vaccine NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
skin-test NN O O
antigen NN O O
or NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
seasonal NN O O
endemic NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
leishmanial NN O O
antigen NN O O
. NN O O

Interestingly NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
endemic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
leishmanial NN O O
antigen NN O O
was NN O O
enhanced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
BCG NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O O
leishmanial NN O O
antigen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
inoculum NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
prevaccination NN O O
IgG NN O O
levels NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+ NN O O
3 NN O O
standard NN O O
deviations NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
cut-off NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
percentage NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
responder NN O O
status NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
anti-mycobacterial NN O O
or NN O O
anti-leishmanial NN O O
responses NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
'low-responder NN O O
' NN O O
status NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
titres NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
severe NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
background NN O O
endemic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
leishmanial NN O O
and NN O O
mycobacterial NN O O
antigens NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
vaccination NN O O
per NN O O
se NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
potentially NN O O
disease NN O O
exacerbatory NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
TH2-associated NN O O
antibody NN O O
response NN O O
especially NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
anti-leishmanial NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
400 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7888291)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
bioactivity NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
bioactivity NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
given NN O O
by NN O O
respective NN O O
dry NN O O
powder NN O O
inhaler NN O O
devices NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
800 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
day-1 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
Turbohaler NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
B800 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
1600 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
day-1 NN O O
( NN O O
B1600 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
Diskhaler NN O I-INT
750 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
day-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
F750 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
1500 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
day-1 NN O O
( NN O O
F1500 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
washout NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
with NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
or NN O O
budesonide NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
regime NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
and NN O O
mouth-rinsing NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
gut NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
obviate NN O O
local NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

Parameters NN O O
of NN O O
hypothalmic-pituitary NN O I-OUT
adrenal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
axis NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
B0/F0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
washout NN O O
( NN O O
F0 NN O O
or NN O O
B0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
attenuated NN O O
the NN O O
post NN O I-OUT
tetracosactrin NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
whilst NN O O
early NN O O
morning NN O O
cortisol NN O O
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
dose-response NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
budesonide NN O O
nor NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
produced NN O O
significant NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
osteocalcin NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
fasting NN O O
urinary NN O O
calcium NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7891203)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
levels NN O O
by NN O O
long-term NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
natural NN O I-INT
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
derived NN O O
from NN O O
Dunaliella NN O O
bardawil NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Long-term NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
derived NN O O
from NN O O
Dunaliella NN O O
bardawil NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
beta-carotene-rich NN O I-INT
algae NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
daily NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
all-trans NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
9-cis NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
and NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
concentrations NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
platelets NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PLT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
all-trans NN O I-OUT
beta-carotene NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
four- NN O O
, NN O O
two- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
threefold NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PLT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MN NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
9-cis NN O I-OUT
beta-carotene NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PLT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MN NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
found NN O O
as NN O O
one-tenth NN O O
, NN O O
one-fifth NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
one-fifth NN O O
of NN O O
all-trans NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
increased NN O O
three- NN O O
, NN O O
two- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.5-fold NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
alpha-tocopherol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
changed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
documented NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
Dunaliella NN O O
bardawil NN O O
was NN O O
preferential NN O O
for NN O O
all-trans NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
9-cis NN O O
form NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7923712)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
T-lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
subsets NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
neoplasm NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
T-lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
its NN O O
subsets NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
neoplasm NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
researched NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

51 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

48 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OKT3+ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OKT4+ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OKT8+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
51 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
adults NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OKT3+ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OKT4+ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OKT8+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obviously NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
before NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
variation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
result NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
more NN O O
affect NN O O
on NN O O
OKT4+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
on NN O O
OKT8+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
From NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
believe NN O O
that NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
many NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7923916)

Decreased NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
dexamethasone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
from NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
relatively NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
challenge NN O O
with NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DEX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
DEX NN O I-INT
is NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
phytohemagglutinin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PHA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-induced NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
AD NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Since NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
AD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
age-matched NN O O
controls NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
fraction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD45RA+ NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CD45RO+ NN O I-OUT
CD4+ NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
produce NN O I-OUT
IL-2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
IL-4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
DEX NN O I-INT
sensitivity NN O O
is NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
changed NN O O
lymphokine NN O O
profile NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
changed NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CD4+ NN O O
T NN O O
cell NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
DEX NN O I-INT
was NN O O
negatively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
produce NN O I-OUT
IL-2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-4 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
AD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
IL-2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-4 NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
AD NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
less NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
regulation NN O O
by NN O O
glucocorticoids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7956629)

A NN O O
cost-benefit NN O I-OUT
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
diabetes NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
implantable NN O I-INT
pumps NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
multiple NN O I-INT
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
if NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
programmable NN O I-INT
implantable NN O I-INT
pumps NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
multiple NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
cost-benefits NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
6-month NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
judged NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
IP NN O O
versus NN O O
SC NN O O
periods NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
better NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HbA1c NN O O
: NN O O
7.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
IP NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
SC NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
fluctuations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
SD NN O O
of NN O O
capillary NN O O
glucose NN O O
values NN O O
: NN O O
3.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
IP NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mM NN O O
SC NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
IP NN O O
vs. NN O O
10.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.1 NN O O
events/month NN O O
SC NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
judged NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Diabetes NN O I-OUT
Control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Complications NN O I-OUT
Trial NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
pump NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Direct NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
pump NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
implantation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
2.6-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
IP NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
SC NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
implantable NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
, NN O O
equally NN O O
accepted NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
costly NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
multiple NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
and NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
unsatisfactory NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
intensive NN O O
diabetes NN O O
management NN O O
with NN O O
SC NN O O
insulin NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
longer-term NN O O
, NN O O
larger-scale NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
comparative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7961334)

Brief NN O O
report NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
facilitated NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
open-ended NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fill-in NN O I-INT
questions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7966066)

Osteocalcin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
one-year NN O O
followup NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
analyze NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
radiological NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
disease NN O O
modifying NN O O
antirheumatic NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
DMARD NN O O
) NN O O
dependent NN O O
factors NN O O
influencing NN O O
bone NN O O
turnover NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
one-year NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
im NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
gold NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
im NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
variation NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
ascending NN O O
anatomic NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
DMARD NN O O
treatments NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O O
formation NN O O
( NN O O
osteocalcin NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
beginning NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.45 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.93 NN O O
-- NN O O
> NN O O
4.42 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.39 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
if NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
sedimentation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ESR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
26.4 NN O O
mm/h NN O O
, NN O O
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
3.8 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
negative NN O O
correlation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
one-year NN O O
CRP- NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ESR NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.45 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
osteocalcin NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
evident NN O O
if NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
pooled NN O O
with NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
as NN O O
already NN O O
receiving NN O O
DMARD NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
63 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
osteocalcin NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
followup NN O O
variable NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
is NN O O
changed NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
regarding NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
activity NN O O
stimulated NN O O
and NN O O
impairment NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
osteocalcin NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7969211)

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
opiate NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O O
fails NN O O
to NN O O
modify NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
adjunct NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
composed NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
insufficiently NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bromocriptine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
composed NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
L-dopa-induced NN O I-PAR
peak-dose NN O I-PAR
dyskinesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
negative NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
opioid NN O O
systems NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiology NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7981078)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
a NN O O
less NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
aggressive NN O I-INT
cystostatic NN O I-INT
policy NN O O
. NN O O

Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Multiple NN O I-PAR
Myeloma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
ascertain NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
staging NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
( NN O O
MM NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
aggressiveness NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
effective NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and/or NN O O
by NN O O
continuing NN O O
or NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
maintenance NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
MM NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Durie NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Salmon NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
between NN O O
being NN O O
followed NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
cytostatics NN O I-INT
until NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
progressed NN O O
and NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MP-P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
just NN O O
after NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
; NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
uniformly NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
MPH-P NN O I-INT
and NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
between NN O O
MPH-P NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Peptichemio NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PTC-VCR-P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Within NN O O
each NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
responsive NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
between NN O O
receiving NN O O
additional NN O O
therapy NN O O
only NN O O
until NN O O
maximal NN O O
tumour NN O O
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
reached NN O O
( NN O O
plateau NN O O
phase NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
continuing NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
indefinitely NN O O
until NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
resistant NN O O
, NN O O
progressive NN O O
or NN O O
relapsing NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
originally NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
MPH-P NN O I-INT
for NN O O
induction NN O O
received NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
vice NN O O
versa NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
43.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
42.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
206 NN O O
stage NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
MPH-P NN O I-INT
and NN O O
48.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
75 NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
myelotoxic NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
MPH-P NN O I-INT
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
caused NN O O
more NN O O
non-haematological NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
aggressive NN O O
induction NN O O
policies NN O O
gave NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
I NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
initially NN O O
left NN O O
untreated NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
t NN O O
hose NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
MPH-P NN O I-INT
just NN O O
after NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
MPH-P NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
all NN O O
stages NN O O
, NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
or NN O O
continuing NN O O
maintenance NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
28.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
34.0 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
MPH-P NN O O
and NN O O
25.3 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
78 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
46.3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
24.3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
still NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
post-induction NN O O
policies NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
MM NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
staging NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
aggressiveness NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
continuing NN O O
or NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
maintenance NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O O
tumor NN O O
reduction NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
MPH-P NN O I-INT
and NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
PTC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
VCR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
inducing NN O O
first NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
also NN O O
second NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
failing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
PTC-VCR-P NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
more NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overwhelming NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
MM NN O O
can NN O O
safely NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
MPH-P NN O I-INT
as NN O O
first NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
delayed NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7995312)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Lisinopril NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
slow-release NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
16-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
involving NN O O
102 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sitting NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
more NN O O
by NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
than NN O O
by NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
over NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
was NN O O
controlled NN O O
( NN O O
sitting NN O O
diastolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
below NN O O
95 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
taking NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
taking NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
taking NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
required NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
reporting NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
drug-related NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
withdrawals NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Cough NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
reported NN O O
with NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flushes NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
once-daily NN O O
titrated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
better NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
titrated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7997384)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
administered NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ddI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
unblinded NN O O
single-dose NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comparisons NN O O
of NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
simultaneous NN O I-INT
ddI NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Seven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
development NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
rash NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Volunteers NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
200-mg NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
itraconazole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
itraconazole NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
concomitant NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
ddI NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
150-mg NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
dispersed NN O O
in NN O O
240 NN O O
ml NN O O
water NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
frequently NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
microbiologic NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

Individual NN O O
concentrations NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
visual NN O O
inspection NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
individual NN O O
's NN O O
serum NN O O
concentration-time NN O O
curve NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
itraconazole NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.30 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
3.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
hours NN O O
when NN O O
itraconazole NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
undetectable NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
ddI NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Simultaneous NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ddI NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
decreases NN O O
absorption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
itraconazole NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
drugs NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
concurrently NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8015776)

Laser-aided NN O I-INT
external NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
subretinal NN O I-PAR
fluid NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
needle NN O O
drainage NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
draining NN O O
subretinal NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
transchoroidally NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O O
scleral NN O O
buckling NN O O
for NN O O
rhegmatogenous NN O O
retinal NN O O
detachment NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
needle NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
procedure NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
angulated NN O I-INT
endolaser NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
set NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
W NN O O
for NN O O
0.2 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
2.4 NN O O
laser NN O O
burns NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
laser-aided NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
transchoroidal NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
subretinal NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
eyes NN O O
and NN O O
retinal NN O O
incarceration NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
our NN O O
numbers NN O O
are NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
some NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
laser-assisted NN O O
drainage NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8069156)

Bronchodilator NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bronchitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8127293)

National NN O O
Surgical NN O O
Adjuvant NN O O
Breast NN O O
and NN O O
Bowel NN O O
Project NN O O
's NN O O
Breast NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Breast NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Trial NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
prevention NN O O
study NN O O
ever NN O O
undertaken NN O O
. NN O O

Administered NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Surgical NN O O
Adjuvant NN O O
Breast NN O O
and NN O O
Bowel NN O O
Project NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trial NN O O
seeking NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
can NN O O
prevent NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objectives NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
are NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
invasive NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
evaluate NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
study NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8161002)

Anticholinergic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Premedication NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
both NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
VO2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
EE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
metabolic NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
anticholinergic NN O O
drugs NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
anticholinergic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
on NN O O
VO2 NN O O
and NN O O
EE NN O O
( NN O O
calculated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
measured NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
VO2 NN O O
and NN O O
carbon NN O O
dioxide NN O O
production NN O O
[ NN O O
VCO2 NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
EE NN O O
[ NN O O
kcal/d NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
3.581 NN O O
x NN O O
VO2 NN O O
[ NN O O
L/d NN O O
] NN O O
+ NN O O
1.448 NN O O
x NN O O
VCO2 NN O O
[ NN O O
L/d NN O O
] NN O O
- NN O O
32.4 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
glycopyrrolate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
scopolamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
consecutive NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
wk NN O O
apart NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
. NN O O

VO2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
EE NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
indirect NN O O
calorimetry NN O O
( NN O O
Deltatrac NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
standard NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
radioreceptor NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Atropine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
glycopyrrolate NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
pressure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
scopolamine NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PRQ NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Scopolamine NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
both NN O O
VO2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
EE NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
glycopyrrolate NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
VO2 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Atropine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
scopolamine NN O O
induced NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
glycopyrrolate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
scopolamine NN O I-INT
differ NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8179165)

[ NN O O
No NN O O
better NN O O
vigilance NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
colonic NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
halothane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam/fentanyl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Early NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
halothane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam/fentanyl NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
approved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
ethics NN O O
committee NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O I-INT
halothane NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
3-5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintained NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
halothane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
1.7 NN O O
mg/kg.h NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
( NN O O
Mi/Fe NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
intubated NN O I-INT
, NN O O
received NN O O
non-depolarising NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
relaxants NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
manually NN O I-INT
ventilated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide-oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2:1.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
, NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administrated NN O O
epidurally NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
; NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
120 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
arriving NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
, NN O O
vigilance NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
Steward NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Trieger NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
recall NN O O
a NN O O
column NN O O
of NN O O
numbers NN O O
( NN O O
KAI NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
symbol NN O O
counting NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
gases NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
ASA NN O O
classification NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
operation NN O O
( NN O O
Table NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Figs NN O O
. NN O O

2-5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Fig NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Comparing NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
severe NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

pCO2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
midazolam/fentanyl NN O I-INT
group NN O O
developed NN O O
hypercapnia NN O I-OUT
above NN O O
50 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
midazolam/fentanyl NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Table NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
no NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
or NN O O
midazolam/fentanyl NN O I-INT
where NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
concerned NN O O
. NN O O

Intraoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
techniques NN O O
provided NN O O
good NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
midazolam/fentanyl NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8179563)

Ketorolac NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
for NN O O
gynaecological NN O I-PAR
day-case NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
providing NN O O
analgesia NN O O
for NN O O
day-case NN O I-PAR
gynaecological NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
blinded NN O I-PAR
fashion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fentanyl NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mcg/kg NN O O
iv NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
im NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
standardized NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
assessed NN O O
were NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
measured NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
ineffective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
sole NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
agents NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
respective NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
a NN O O
multireceptor NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
analgesia NN O O
, NN O O
will NN O O
prove NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8210973)

Erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
deformability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cyclosporin-treated NN O I-INT
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
corn NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
cyclosporin-prednisolone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nine NN O I-INT
azathioprine-prednisolone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
supplemented NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomization NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
corn NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

Erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
deformability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cyclosporin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
values NN O O
after NN O O
supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
oil NN O O
supplementation NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
phospholipids NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
increased NN O O
erythrocyte NN O O
membrane NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
content NN O O
might NN O O
correct NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
erythrocyte NN O O
deformability NN O O
in NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
probable NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
are NN O O
membrane-related NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
oil NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
exclude NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cyclosporin-induced NN O O
rigidified NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

Decreased NN O O
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
deformability NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cyclosporin-induced NN O I-INT
deterioration NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
haemodynamics NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
endothelin NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
elevated NN O O
endothelin NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8214547)

Analgesia NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
or NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
compared NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intramuscular NN O I-INT
pethidine NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
thiopentone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
suxamethonium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintained NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
atracurium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intravenous NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
neonate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
recovery NN O I-PAR
ward NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
requested NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
ketorolac NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pethidine NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
intramuscularly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
four-point NN O O
verbal NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
analgesia NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
requested NN O O
additional NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
analgesia NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Mann-Whitney NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.27 NN O O
, NN O O
Mantel-Haentszel NN O I-OUT
test NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.17 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ketorolac NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pethidine NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
requested NN O O
further NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ketorolac NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pethidine NN O O
group NN O O
requested NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
further NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
more NN O O
side-effects NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pethidine NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Ketorolac NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
pethidine NN O O
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
provided NN O O
similar NN O O
but NN O O
variable NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O O
caesarean NN O O
section NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8215273)

Cefprozil NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
penicillin NN O I-INT
V NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
streptococcal NN O I-PAR
tonsillopharyngitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
streptococcal NN O I-PAR
tonsillopharyngitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
409 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
323 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bacteriological NN O I-PAR
responses NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
these NN O O
323 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
172 NN O O
received NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
151 NN O O
received NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
V. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
95.3 NN O O
versus NN O O
88.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
original NN O I-OUT
serotype NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
streptococci NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
91.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
87.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
not NN O O
being NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.125 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
bacteriological NN O O
failures NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
68.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
26.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

beta-Lactamase-producing NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O I-OUT
aureus NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
isolated NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
throat NN O I-OUT
flora NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
than NN O O
during NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
probably NN O O
related NN O O
or NN O O
of NN O O
unknown NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drugs NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cefprozil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
6.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Cefprozil NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
reliable NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
streptococcal NN O I-PAR
pharyngitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8217692)

High NN O I-INT
purity NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
VIII NN O I-INT
and NN O O
immune NN O O
state NN O O
in NN O O
HIV NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8227803)

Increased NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neural NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
silent NN O O
ischemia NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
: NN O O
disparate NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
immediate NN O O
release NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
associated NN O O
neural NN O I-OUT
tonicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ambient NN O O
ischemia NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
immediate NN O O
release NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
ischemic NN O O
burden NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
office-measured NN O O
and NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Low NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
ischemia NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
Holter NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
monitoring NN O O
, NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
reduced NN O O
coronary NN O O
flow NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
factor NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
previously NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ischemic NN O O
episodes NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
silent NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
measured NN O O
plasma NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
content NN O O
during NN O O
ischemic NN O O
events NN O O
from NN O O
blood NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
automatic NN O O
pump NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
assistance NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
real-time NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
segment NN O I-INT
depression NN O I-INT
monitor NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
then NN O O
related NN O O
the NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
content NN O O
to NN O O
ischemic NN O O
episodes NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
48-h NN O O
Holter NN O O
recording NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
reading NN O O
by NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
diaries NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
period NN O O
and NN O O
immediate-release NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
More NN O O
than NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
silent NN O O
. NN O O

Ischemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
peaked NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
morning NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
occurred NN O O
during NN O O
routine NN O O
sedentary NN O O
activities NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
ischemia NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Seventy-five NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
increased NN O O
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Nifedipine NN O O
therapy NN O O
controlled NN O O
measured NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
24-h NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ischemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
whose NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
was NN O O
controlled NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
increased NN O O
neural NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ischemic NN O O
event NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
coronary NN O O
perfusion NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
silent NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

Nifedipine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
immediate NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
when NN O O
both NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
and NN O O
office-measured NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
controlled NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8237838)

Veterans NN O I-PAR
Affairs NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
antiarrhythmic NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CHF NN O O
STAT NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
arrhythmia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
include NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nonischemic NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
beats NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
hour NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
must NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
shortness NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breath NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
minimal NN O I-PAR
exertion NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
nocturnal NN O I-PAR
dyspnea NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
internal NN O I-PAR
dimension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LVIDd NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
echocardiogram NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cardiothoracic NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
vasodilator NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
unless NN O O
they NN O O
find NN O O
it NN O O
intolerable NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
study NN O O
unless NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
occur NN O O
that NN O O
necessitate NN O O
individualized NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
expectation NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
674 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
will NN O O
allow NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
2-year NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
power NN O O
of NN O O
0.90 NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
2-sided NN O O
alpha NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

Intermittent NN O O
Holter NN O O
monitoring NN O O
, NN O O
radionuclide NN O O
ventriculograms NN O O
, NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
function NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
echocardiograms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
arterial NN O O
blood NN O O
gases NN O O
, NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (8260242)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
24-h NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
occupational NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
oncology NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P.T.P NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
settings NN O O
devoted NN O O
to NN O O
cancer NN O O
care NN O O
is NN O O
beginning NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
recognised NN O O
but NN O O
their NN O O
content NN O O
, NN O O
form NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
need NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
oncology NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
24-h NN O I-INT
P.T.P NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Attitudes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
semantic NN O I-OUT
differential NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
occupational NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-OUT
Nursing NN O I-OUT
Stress NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
standardised NN O I-OUT
videotaped NN O I-OUT
role-playing NN O I-OUT
exercises NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
trained NN O O
( NN O O
T.S NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
C.S. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
training NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
on NN O O
those NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
self NN O I-OUT
concept NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
occupational NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
inadequate NN O O
preparation NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Limited NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
regarding NN O O
post-training NN O O
communication NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

T.S NN O O
. NN O O

were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interview NN O O
than NN O O
C.S NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
24-h NN O O
P.T.P NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
assessed NN O O
here NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
consolidate NN O O
the NN O O
skills NN O O
acquired NN O O
by NN O O
regular NN O O
post-training NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8334086)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
policy NN O O
with NN O O
forceps NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
assisted NN O O
vaginal NN O O
delivery NN O O
by NN O O
forceps NN O O
with NN O O
delivery NN O O
by NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
policy NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
which NN O O
dictated NN O O
the NN O O
cup NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
specific NN O O
situations NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Multicentre NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
district NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
West NN O I-PAR
Midlands NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
hundred-seven NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
assisted NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
296 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
vacuum NN O I-INT
extractor NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
311 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
forceps NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Delivery NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
perineal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
anaesthetic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
scalp NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
allocated NN O O
instrument NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
forceps NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
) NN O O
0.64 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
0.4-1.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
vaginally NN O O
( NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
forceps NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
anal NN O I-OUT
sphincter NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
extensions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
0.6 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.38-0.97 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
group NN O O
requiring NN O O
epidural NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
anaesthetics NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
25.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
32.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
0.69 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.49-0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
anaesthetics NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
0.17 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.04-0.76 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
babies NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
cephalhaematomata NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
3.3 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.4-7.4 NN O O
) NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
fewer NN O O
babies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
babies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
forceps NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
unexplained NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
convulsions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Assisted NN O O
vaginal NN O O
delivery NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
vacuum NN O O
extractor NN O O
policy NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
trauma NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
with NN O O
forceps NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
neonatal NN O O
morbidity NN O O
adequately NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8352625)

A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
pulsed NN O I-INT
low-intensity NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
for NN O O
healing NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
decubitus NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Pulsed NN O I-INT
low-intensity NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
microA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
stage NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
decubitus NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Seventy-four NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sham NN O I-INT
instrument NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
ulcers NN O O
( NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
healed NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
ulcer NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
healed NN O O
and NN O O
most NN O O
ulcers NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
surface NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
ulcer NN O I-OUT
depth NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
these NN O O
ulcers NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Experiments NN O O
with NN O O
guinea NN O O
pigs NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
pulsed NN O I-INT
low-intensity NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
flux NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
epidermis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pulsed NN O I-INT
low-intensity NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
represents NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
stage NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
decubitus NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
growth NN O O
of NN O O
fibroblasts NN O O
and NN O O
keratinocytes NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
pulsed NN O I-INT
low-intensity NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
due NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
homeostasis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8378411)

Video NN O O
rating NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
maprotiline NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DSM-III-R NN O I-PAR
290.21 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
maprotiline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
parameter NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
video NN O O
rating NN O O
of NN O O
global NN O O
impression NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Mini-Mental NN O I-OUT
State NN O I-OUT
Examination NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
MMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Geriatric NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
GDS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
maprotiline NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O O
and NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
included NN O O
127 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
maprotiline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
reflected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GDS NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
indication NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
maprotiline NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
global NN O O
impression NN O O
, NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
video NN O O
rating NN O O
, NN O O
gave NN O O
no NN O O
indication NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

- NN O O
The NN O O
video NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interrater NN O O
reliability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
discrepancy NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
video NN O O
rating NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
GDS NN O O
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

- NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
confirm NN O O
similar NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
authors NN O O
; NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
sedating NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
with NN O O
some NN O O
anticholinergic NN O O
effects NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
its NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
interest NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
lies NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
methodology NN O O
( NN O O
video NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8436747)

Sustained NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
tone NN O O
with NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
tone NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
provide NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
and NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
benefit NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
whose NN O O
production NN O O
is NN O O
ultimately NN O O
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
exerts NN O O
significant NN O O
regulatory NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
target NN O O
organs NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
nervous NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
anticipated NN O O
that NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
would NN O O
significantly NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
autonomic NN O O
imbalance NN O O
characteristic NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
congestive NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
influence NN O O
over NN O O
neural NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
control NN O O
may NN O O
significantly NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
benefit NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
investigation NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
autonomic NN O O
tone NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
spectral NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
zofenopril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
balanced NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
class NN O O
, NN O O
ventricular NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
autonomic NN O O
tone NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parasympathetically NN O I-OUT
governed NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sympathetically NN O I-OUT
influenced NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
zofenopril NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
twofold NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
tone NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
long-term NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
autonomic NN O O
balance NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
derives NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
tone NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
vagal NN O O
tone NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
protective NN O O
against NN O O
malignant NN O O
ventricular NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
similar NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O O
failure NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8458681)

Hypotensive NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
SQ29,852 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
angiotensin NN O I-INT
converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
SQ29,852 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
monotherapies NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
SQ29,852 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
15.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.1 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
37.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18.5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
both NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
apolipoproteins NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipoproteins NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
atherosclerotic NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
both NN O O
SQ29,852 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
inter-group NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
SQ29,852 NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
drug NN O O
without NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
lipid NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8473426)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovaries NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
in-vitro NN O I-OUT
fertilization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
in-vitro NN O I-INT
fertilization NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
embryo NN O I-INT
transfer NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVF-ET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
76 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovaries NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCO NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
pre-treatment NN O I-PAR
ultrasound NN O I-PAR
scan NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
ovaries NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cause NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stimulation NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Despite NN O O
receiving NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
human NN O I-INT
menopausal NN O I-INT
gonadotrophin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HMG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PCO NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
oestradiol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
chorionic NN O I-INT
gonadotrophin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
( NN O O
5940 NN O O
+/- NN O O
255 NN O O
versus NN O O
4370 NN O O
+/- NN O O
240 NN O O
pmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
developed NN O O
more NN O O
follicles NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
versus NN O O
9.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
produced NN O O
more NN O O
oocytes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
versus NN O O
6.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
fertilization NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCO NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
52.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
66.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
cleavage NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate/embryo NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
25.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCO NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
23.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
ovaries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
high NN O O
order NN O O
multiple NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCO NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
ovaries NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
PCO NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
10.5 NN O O
% NN O O
developed NN O O
moderate/severe NN O O
ovarian NN O I-OUT
hyperstimulation NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OHSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
PCO NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
comparable NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
livebirth NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
diagnose NN O O
PCO NN O O
before NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
is NN O O
initiated NN O O
as NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
OHSS NN O O
following NN O O
IVF-ET NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8530236)

Laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
dissecting NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ureter NN O I-INT
necessary NN O O
? NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
first NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
Reich NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
1989 NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
hysterectomy NN O O
being NN O O
employed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
replacement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vast NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
traditional NN O O
abdominal NN O O
hysterectomies NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
three NN O O
critical NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
hysterectomy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
critical NN O O
point NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
uterine NN O O
arteries NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ureter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
paracervical NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
ureteral NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
operative NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirty NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
hysterectomies NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
1991 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
later NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
applied NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
dissecting NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ureter NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
hysterectomy NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
discharged NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
dissecting NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ureter NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
discrepancy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ureter NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
uterine NN O O
arteries NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
confidently NN O O
desiccated NN O O
once NN O O
the NN O O
path NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ureter NN O O
near NN O O
the NN O O
uterosacral NN O O
ligament NN O O
is NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8540453)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
n-3 NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
on NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
patency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Epidemiologic NN O O
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
long-chain NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O O
n-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
atherothrombotic NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
610 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
antithrombotic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Their NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
phospholipid NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
profiles NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
1-year NN O O
graft NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
angiography NN O O
in NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Vein NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
occlusion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
distal NN O I-OUT
anastomoses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.77 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.60 NN O O
to NN O O
0.99 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.034 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
occluded NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
s NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.72 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.51 NN O O
to NN O O
1.01 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
patient NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
vein NN O O
graft NN O O
occlusions NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
relative NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
phospholipid NN O I-OUT
n-3 NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
for NN O O
linear NN O O
trend NN O O
= NN O O
0.0037 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
dietary NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
n-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
vein NN O O
graft NN O O
occlusion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
inverse NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
relative NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
phospholipid NN O I-OUT
n-3 NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
occlusions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8568534)

Correlation NN O O
of NN O O
quantitative NN O O
measures NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
Ashworth NN O I-INT
scale NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
plantar NN O I-PAR
flexor NN O I-PAR
spasticity NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
traumatic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
plantar NN O O
flexor NN O O
spasticity NN O O
describes NN O O
relationships NN O O
among NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
qualitative NN O O
spasticity NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
potential NN O O
quantitative NN O O
spasticity NN O O
measures NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
voluntary NN O O
ankle NN O O
muscle NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
volunteer NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
traumatic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
30.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
battery NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
sequenced NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
ankle NN O O
. NN O O

Tests NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
modified NN O I-OUT
Ashworth NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scoring NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
Achilles NN O I-OUT
tendon NN O I-OUT
vibration NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexor NN O I-OUT
contraction NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
timed NN O I-OUT
toe NN O I-OUT
tapping NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
returned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
ankle NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
resulting NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
ankles NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
the NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

Spearman NN O O
's NN O O
coefficients NN O O
for NN O O
correlation NN O O
of NN O O
quantitative NN O O
spasticity NN O O
measures NN O O
with NN O O
MAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.39 NN O O
to NN O O
0.49 NN O O
with NN O O
associated NN O O
probabilities NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
. NN O O

Pearson NN O O
coefficients NN O O
for NN O O
correlation NN O O
of NN O O
quantitative NN O O
spasticity NN O O
measures NN O O
with NN O O
TTT NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
correlation NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
quantitative NN O O
measures NN O O
yielded NN O O
R NN O O
= NN O O
0.614 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
MAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
R NN O O
= NN O O
0.365 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
TTT NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
reveal NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
relationships NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
low NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
strength NN O O
among NN O O
potential NN O I-OUT
quantitative NN O I-OUT
spasticity NN O I-OUT
measures NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O I-OUT
qualitative NN O I-OUT
spasticity NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
voluntary NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Understanding NN O O
these NN O O
relationships NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
essential NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ongoing NN O O
search NN O O
for NN O O
quantitative NN O O
spasticity NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8570775)

Low-dose NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O O
chemistries NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
month-long NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/day NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
contrasted NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
conjoint NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
evaluations NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Modest NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
PLC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
NTX NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
marginally NN O O
better NN O O
overall NN O O
results NN O O
following NN O O
NTX NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
plasma NN O O
chemical NN O O
profiles NN O O
. NN O O

Massively NN O O
elevated NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
assays NN O O
using NN O O
C-terminal NN O O
antibody NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
antibody NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
exhibited NN O O
abnormally NN O O
low NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
adrenocorticotropic NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
smaller NN O O
subsets NN O O
exhibited NN O O
elevated NN O O
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arginine-vasopressin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serotonin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
best NN O O
clinical NN O O
responders NN O O
exhibited NN O O
the NN O O
clearest NN O O
normalization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
elevated NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
chemistries NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
C-terminal-beta-endorphin NN O O
and NN O O
serotonin NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
carry-over NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
measures NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
NTX NN O I-INT
before NN O O
PLC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
NTX NN O I-INT
only NN O O
benefits NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
plasma NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
linkage NN O O
between NN O O
abnormal NN O O
plasma NN O O
chemistries NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
those NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pro-opiomelanocortin NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
autistic NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8595286)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
two NN O O
schedules NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
antenatal NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
antenatal NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
project NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
British NN O I-INT
antenatal NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
schedule NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-INT
schedule NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
style NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
maternal NN O O
and NN O O
professional NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Places NN O O
in NN O O
south NN O O
east NN O O
London NN O O
providing NN O O
antenatal NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
shared NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
planning NN O O
to NN O O
deliver NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
hospitals NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECT NN O O
2794 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
fulfilling NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1994 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
professional NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
new NN O I-INT
style NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
had NN O O
fewer NN O O
day NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
v NN O O
1.0 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
scans NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
v NN O O
1.7 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
often NN O O
suspected NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
carrying NN O I-OUT
fetuses NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.73 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.54 NN O O
to NN O O
0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
some NN O O
poorer NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
worried NN O O
about NN O O
fetal NN O I-OUT
wellbeing NN O I-OUT
antenatally NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
coping NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
baby NN O I-OUT
postnatally NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
negative NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
their NN O O
babies NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
and NN O O
postnatally NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O O
dissatisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
they NN O O
received NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
2.50 NN O O
; NN O O
2.00 NN O O
to NN O O
3.11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patterns NN O O
of NN O O
antenatal NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
involving NN O O
fewer NN O O
routine NN O O
visits NN O I-INT
for NN O O
women NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
reduced NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
dissatisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
antenatal NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
scans NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
variables NN O O
reported NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
visit NN O O
schedules NN O O
studied NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
clinical NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

Uncertainty NN O O
remains NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
schedules NN O I-INT
for NN O O
rare NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8607589)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O O
thromboembolism NN O O
after NN O O
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
with NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fixed-dose NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
adjusted NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
venous NN O O
thromboembolism NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
670 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
adjusted-dose NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
international NN O I-INT
normalized NN O I-INT
ratio NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
3.0 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Both NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
started NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
adequate NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
venograms NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
the NN O O
417 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
adequate NN O I-PAR
venograms NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
109 NN O O
of NN O O
211 NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
51.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
76 NN O O
of NN O O
206 NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
36.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
Cl NN O O
, NN O O
5.3 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
24.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
Twenty-two NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
10.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
11.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
proximal NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Cl NN O O
, NN O O
-7.2 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
334 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
336 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enoxaparin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O O
( NN O O
Cl NN O O
, NN O O
-2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
postoperative NN O O
, NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
adjusted-dose NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
deep NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
proximal NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
or NN O O
clinically NN O O
overt NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8614301)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
marine NN O I-INT
oils NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
coagulation NN O O
and NN O O
cellular NN O O
activation NN O O
in NN O O
whole NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
marine NN O O
oils NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Eskimo NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
134 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
to NN O O
consume NN O O
15 NN O O
mL/d NN O O
of NN O O
oil NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
blubber NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
seal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cod NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
seal/cod NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
blubber NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Minke NN O I-INT
whale NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ten NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oil NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
seal/cod NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CLO NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
whale NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Triacylglycerol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CLO NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
fragment NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
whale NN O O
oil NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VIIc NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

Tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lipopolysaccharide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LPS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-stimulated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
reduced NN O O
after NN O O
whale NN O O
oil NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
seal NN O O
or NN O O
CLO NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
LPS-induced NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
monocytes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
degree NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
seal/CLO NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
whale NN O O
oil NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
dramatic NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
B2 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
LPS-stimulated NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
after NN O O
whale NN O O
oil NN O O
intake NN O O
with NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O O
diet NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
seal NN O O
oil NN O O
and NN O O
CLO NN O O
and NN O O
especially NN O O
with NN O O
whale NN O O
oil NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
several NN O O
products NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
thrombotic NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8614420)

The NN O O
sequencing NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
conservative NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
substantial NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
increasingly NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
breast-conserving NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
sequencing NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
substantial NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
distant NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
breast-conserving NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
surviving NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
58 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
124 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
five-year NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
site NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
distant NN O O
metastases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
radiotherapy-first NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy-first NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
38 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.17 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
73 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
81 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
five-year NN O I-OUT
crude NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
site NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
radiotherapy-first NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chemotherapy-first NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
5 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
local NN O O
recurrence NN O O
and NN O O
32 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
distant NN O O
or NN O O
regional NN O O
recurrence NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
of NN O O
borderline NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
ar NN O I-PAR
substantial NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
preferable NN O O
to NN O O
give NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8616024)

Measurement NN O O
of NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nordic NN O O
Myeloma NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
NMSG NN O O
4/90 NN O O
) NN O O
comparing NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
melphalan/prednisone NN O I-INT
to NN O O
melphalan/ NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2b NN O I-INT
in NN O O
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
in NN O O
1990 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
integrated NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O O
) NN O O
developed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
Organization NN O O
of NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
( NN O O
EORTC NN O O
) NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
on NN O O
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O O
incorporates NN O O
five NN O O
functional NN O O
scales NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
symptom NN O O
scales NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
quality-of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
some NN O O
single NN O O
symptom NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

524 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
90.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
581 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
NMSG NN O I-PAR
4/90 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
questionnaire NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
484 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
83.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
questionnaires NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
but NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scales NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
criteria NN O O
of NN O O
reliability NN O O
( NN O O
Cronbach NN O O
's NN O O
alpha NN O O
> NN O O
/ NN O O
0.70 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Validity NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scales NN O O
to NN O O
discriminate NN O O
clearly NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
differing NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
as NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
W.H.O NN O O
. NN O O

performance NN O O
index NN O O
and NN O O
Durie NN O O
& NN O O
Salmon NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
objective NN O O
disease NN O O
status NN O O
( NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
relapse NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
demonstrate NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
QLQ-C30 NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
reliable NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
valid NN O I-OUT
instrument NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
these NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
data NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
cost-utility NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NMSG NN O O
4/90 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8628584)

Relaxation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
reduce NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
cancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
exist NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
frequent NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
importance NN O O
as NN O O
adjuncts NN O O
to NN O O
medical NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
oral NN O O
mucositis NN O O
pain NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapist NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
coping NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
94 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twice NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
'booster NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
confirmed NN O O
our NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
relaxation NN O O
and NN O O
imagery NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
package NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O O
coping NN O O
skills NN O O
would NN O O
report NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O O
skills NN O O
package NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
additive NN O O
effect NN O O
beyond NN O O
relaxation NN O O
and NN O O
imagery NN O O
alone NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
confirmed NN O O
. NN O O

Average NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
therapist NN O O
support NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.103 NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
relative NN O O
helpfulness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
managing NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
matched NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
VAS NN O O
reports NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
relaxation NN O O
and NN O O
imagery NN O O
training NN O O
reduces NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
treatment-related NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
adding NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
relaxation NN O O
with NN O O
imagery NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
improve NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8657237)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
with NN O O
angioplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multivessel NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Bypass NN O O
Angioplasty NN O O
Revascularization NN O O
Investigation NN O O
( NN O O
BARI NN O O
) NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Coronary-artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CABG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PTCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
alternative NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
revascularization NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
selected NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multivessel NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
suitable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
PTCA NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
poorer NN O O
five-year NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
CABG NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multivessel NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
strategy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
914 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
PTCA NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
915 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
5.4 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
events NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
respective NN O O
in-hospital NN O O
event NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
CABG NN O O
and NN O O
PTCA NN O O
were NN O O
1.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
1.1 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
4.6 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
2.1 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
Q-wave NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.8 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
0.2 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
five-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
89.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
CABG NN O O
and NN O O
86.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
PTCA NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.19 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
-0.2 NN O O
percent NN O O
to NN O O
6.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
respective NN O I-OUT
five-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
Q-wave NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
80.4 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
78.7 NN O O
percent NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
five NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
CABG NN O O
had NN O O
undergone NN O O
additional NN O O
revascularization NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
54 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
PTCA NN O O
; NN O O
69 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
PTCA NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
subsequently NN O O
undergo NN O O
CABG NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
hypoglycemic NN O I-PAR
agents NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
base NN O I-PAR
line NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
not NN O O
specified NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
five-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
80.6 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CABG NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
65.5 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
PTCA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
As NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CABG NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
PTCA NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
compromise NN O O
five-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multivessel NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
although NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
treated NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
five-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
after NN O O
CABG NN O I-INT
than NN O O
after NN O O
PTCA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8752254)

Continuous NN O O
and NN O O
cyclical NN O I-INT
clodronate NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
and NN O O
bone NN O O
density NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
clodronate NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
clodronate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
clodronate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
60-day NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
last NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
calcium NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
spinal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
both NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.03 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.005 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
femoral NN O O
density NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.002 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
clodronate-treated NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
had NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
lumbar NN O O
bone NN O O
mass NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cyclical NN O I-INT
clodronate NN O I-INT
had NN O O
higher NN O O
spinal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
continuously NN O O
( NN O O
3.32 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.71 NN O O
versus NN O O
0.43 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.89 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
femoral NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
clodronate NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
cyclically NN O O
and NN O O
continuously NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Continuous NN O I-INT
clodronate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
biochemical NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
consequent NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
osteocalcin NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
parathyroid NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
One-year NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
clodronate NN O I-INT
induces NN O O
a NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
mass NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
spine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
continuous NN O O
regimen NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
further NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
lumbar NN O O
bone NN O O
density NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
cyclical NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
turnover NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8779018)

Deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
reconstructive NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
goals NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
mode NN O O
of NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
surgical NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

SUMMARY NN O O
OF NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
Few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
prophylaxis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Incidence NN O O
rates NN O O
have NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.9-14 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
different NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
prophylaxis NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
duplex NN O I-OUT
doppler NN O I-OUT
scans NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
fifth NN O O
and NN O O
seventh NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remaining NN O O
219 NN O O
patients NN O O
formed NN O O
a NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
thrombosis NN O I-INT
embolic NN O I-INT
deterrent NN O I-INT
stockings NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
thrombosis NN O I-INT
embolic NN O I-INT
deterrent NN O I-INT
stockings NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
boots NN O I-INT
for NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
surgeon NN O O
preference NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
329 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
clinically NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
110 NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
asymptomatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
109 NN O O
duplex NN O I-OUT
scans NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
scan NN O O
was NN O O
indeterminate NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
follow-up NN O O
venogram NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
negative NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
coumadin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
excessive NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
219 NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
group NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
detectable NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
duplex NN O I-OUT
ultra-sonography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
overall NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
329 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
low NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
rate NN O O
is NN O O
in NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
recent NN O O
studies NN O O
that NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Given NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
incidence NN O O
, NN O O
routine NN O O
screening NN O O
for NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
thrombi NN O O
appears NN O O
unwarranted NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
mechanical NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
graduated NN O O
compression NN O O
stockings NN O O
and NN O O
pneumatic NN O O
compression NN O O
boots NN O O
is NN O O
preferable NN O O
to NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8780837)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Drug NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
with NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
checklists NN O I-INT
rated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
teachers NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ethological NN O I-INT
playroom NN O I-INT
observations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
' NN O O
checklists NN O O
and NN O O
playroom NN O O
data NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
differentiate NN O O
between NN O O
naltrexone NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
teachers NN O O
significantly NN O O
favored NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O O
on NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
stereotypic NN O O
behavior NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8792266)

The NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
some NN O I-PAR
sounds NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
listened NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
unmodified NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Informal NN O O
data NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
sound NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
also NN O O
have NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

Verbal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
IQ NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
some NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
listening NN O I-INT
to NN O O
selected NN O O
unmodified NN O O
music NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sound NN O I-PAR
sensitivity NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
that NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
commonly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8828933)

Regular NN O O
replacement NN O O
of NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
wear NN O I-INT
rigid NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
permeable NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
While NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
planned NN O O
replacement NN O O
of NN O O
soft NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
any NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
to NN O O
planned NN O O
replacement NN O O
of NN O O
rigid NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
permeable NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RGP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
addressed NN O O
experimentally NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
of NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
wear NN O I-INT
RGP NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-masked NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
RGP NN O I-PAR
lens NN O I-PAR
wearers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
wore NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
wear NN O I-INT
Quantum NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Dk NN O O
= NN O O
120 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
replaced NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O I-INT
scheduled NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
replace NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
integrity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lenses NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
lens NN O O
wear NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
every NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
lenses NN O O
worn NN O O
by NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
lenses NN O O
worn NN O O
by NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
subjects NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
mucous NN O I-OUT
coating NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lens NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
; NN O O
ANCOVA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
microcystic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tarsal NN O I-OUT
conjunctiva NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lens NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
refractive NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
advocate NN O O
that NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
optimal NN O I-OUT
lens NN O I-OUT
integrity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
RGP NN O I-PAR
lenses NN O I-PAR
used NN O O
for NN O O
extended NN O O
wear NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
replaced NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8852235)

An NN O O
occupation NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
improving NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreasing NN O I-OUT
obesity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
quasi-experimental NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
occupation NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fitness NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
1,504 NN O I-PAR
police NN O I-PAR
trainees NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ethnic NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
across NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Carolina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
sites NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
implemented NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

As NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
sites NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
aerobic NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
muscular NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sit NN O I-OUT
ups NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
minute NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lowered NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
required NN O O
minimal NN O O
equipment NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
taught NN O O
primarily NN O O
by NN O O
peers NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
occupational NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improving NN O O
health NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
particularly NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
occupations NN O O
with NN O O
many NN O O
workers NN O O
who NN O O
seldom NN O O
engage NN O O
in NN O O
leisure NN O O
time NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8873520)

The NN O O
tension-free NN O I-INT
hernioplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
tension-free NN O I-INT
hernioplasty NN O I-INT
as NN O O
introduced NN O O
by NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O O
has NN O O
gained NN O O
increasing NN O O
acceptance NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
decade NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
2-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
results NN O O
after NN O O
102 NN O I-PAR
tension-free NN O I-INT
hernioplasties NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
prolene NN O I-INT
mesh NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
groin NN O I-INT
hernias NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
Cooper NN O I-INT
ligament NN O I-INT
repairs NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
hernias NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-INT
ring NN O I-INT
repairs NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
indirect NN O I-INT
hernias NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
tension-free NN O I-INT
repairs NN O I-INT
five NN O O
hernias NN O I-OUT
recurred NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
either NN O O
Cooper NN O I-INT
ligament NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
ring NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
, NN O O
16 NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
indirect NN O I-OUT
hernias NN O I-OUT
recurred NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
tension-free NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
recurred NN O O
after NN O O
abdominal NN O I-INT
ring NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
tension-free NN O I-OUT
repairs NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
inguinal NN O I-OUT
hernias NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
Cooper NN O I-INT
ligament NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0081 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
tested NN O O
methods NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
one-third NN O O
after NN O O
tension-free NN O I-INT
herniotomies NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
conventionel NN O I-INT
herniotomies NN O I-INT
without NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (88754)

Adjvant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
tongue NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
floor NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mouth NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Since NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1974 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
tongue NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
floor NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mouth NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
stratification NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
staging NN O O
and NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
one-third NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
citrovorum NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg/week NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
one-third NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
C. NN O I-INT
parvum NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
remaining NN O I-INT
third NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
If NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
delay NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Survival NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
also NN O O
not NN O O
signigicantly NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
small NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8884623)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
intracranial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
subjected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
craniotomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
perioperative NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
intracranial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CBF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
subjected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
craniotomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
supratentorial NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
anesthetized NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
thiopental NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
PaCO2 NN O O
level NN O O
averaging NN O O
4.8 NN O O
kPa NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
indomethacin NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
administrated NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dura NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ICP NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
continuously NN O I-INT
subdurally NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
22-gauge NN O I-INT
canula NN O I-INT
connected NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
transducer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CBF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
arteriovenous NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AVDO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
twice NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
indomethacin/placebo NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
ICP NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
6.5 NN O O
to NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
CBF NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
AVDO2 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Indomethacin NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
arteriovenous NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lactate/oxygen NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
provoke NN O O
global NN O O
cerebral NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
dura NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
relaxed NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
dura NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
opened NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
mannitol NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
dural NN O I-OUT
tightness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
mannitol NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
hypocapnia NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
perioperative NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
excellent NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
intracranial NN O O
hypertension NN O O
during NN O O
normocapnic NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
craniotomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8888660)

Effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
medication NN O O
washout NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
48-hour NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
collected NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Signal-averaged NN O I-OUT
electrocardiograms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Average NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
posterior NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
septum NN O O
16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
LV NN O O
mass NN O O
420 NN O O
+/- NN O O
90 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
LV NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
212 NN O O
= NN O O
51 NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
168 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
phase NN O O
and NN O O
146 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
after NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O O
; NN O O
diastolic NN O O
BP NN O O
was NN O O
103 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
and NN O O
89 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
4.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
to NN O O
3.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
after NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
average NN O O
hourly NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
contractions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
22 NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
25 NN O O
with NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
couplets NN O O
and NN O O
0.2 NN O O
and NN O O
0.2 NN O O
runs NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
patient NN O O
per NN O O
hour NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Variables NN O O
of NN O O
signal-averaged NN O I-OUT
electrocardiography NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
LV NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
worsen NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
signal-averaged NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8908288)

Final NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
streptococcal NN O O
preparation NN O O
OK-432 NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
supplementary NN O O
immunopotentiator NN O O
for NN O O
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
streptococcal NN O O
preparation NN O O
OK-432 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
1984 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1989 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
stages NN O O
( NN O O
stage NN O O
I NN O O
or NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
stages NN O O
( NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
or NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
further NN O O
subdivided NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
OK-432 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
OK-432 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
OK-432 NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
sealed NN O O
envelope NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
basic NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
was NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
required NN O O
, NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
5Fu NN O O
or NN O O
derivatives NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
basic NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
serious NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
contraindicate NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
target NN O O
administration NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
disqualified NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
double NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
incomplete NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
remaining NN O I-PAR
109 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
5-year NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
immunized NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
advanced NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
immunized NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
enjoy NN O O
a NN O O
slightly NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Over NN O O
a NN O O
24-month NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
the NN O O
immunized NN O O
group NN O O
always NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
leukocytes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
21 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
sometimes NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
hoped NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
this NN O O
inhibition NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
mitigated NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
assist NN O O
the NN O O
compromised NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
maintain NN O O
a NN O O
certain NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
will NN O O
prevent NN O O
recurrence NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
immunized NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesize NN O O
that NN O O
OK-432 NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
extending NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence-free NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8911127)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
non-metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bimonthly NN O I-INT
family NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Personality NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
16-PF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IIQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FLIC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BDI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
endpoints NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
were NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

Cognitive NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O O
counselling NN O O
improved NN O O
both NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Better NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
revealed NN O O
by NN O O
some NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
personality NN O O
traits NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8917026)

Ranitidine NN O O
improves NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
function NN O O
after NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
immunomodulatory NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
histamine NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Surgical NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
university NN O I-PAR
Level NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Glasgow NN O I-PAR
Coma NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
stress-related NN O O
upper NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Continuous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
6.25 NN O I-INT
mg/hr NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Before NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
cell-surface NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
mitogen-stimulated NN O I-OUT
interferon-gamma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interleukin-2 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
enzyme-linked NN O O
immunosorbent NN O O
assay NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
19 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
CD4+ NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
CD8+ NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mitogen-stimulated NN O I-OUT
interferon-gamma NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
121 NN O O
to NN O O
269 NN O O
pg/mL NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
interleukin-2 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
circulating NN O I-OUT
B-cell NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
an NN O O
immunostimulatory NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
histamine-2-receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
cellular NN O O
and NN O O
mediator NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8921775)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
supplementary NN O I-INT
antioxidant NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
on NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
lowering NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
accumulating NN O O
experimental NN O O
, NN O O
epidemiological NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
anti-oxidant NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Cholesterol NN O O
Lowering NN O O
Atherosclerosis NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
CLAS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
self-selected NN O O
supplementary NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
preintrusive NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
CLAS NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
arterial NN O O
imaging NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
nonsmoking NN O I-PAR
40- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
59-year-old NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
colestipol/niacin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
preintrusive NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
146 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
high-resolution NN O O
B-mode NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
quantification NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
common NN O O
carotid NN O O
artery NN O O
far NN O O
wall NN O O
intima-media NN O O
thickness NN O O
( NN O O
IMT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
the NN O O
nutritional NN O O
supplement NN O O
database NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
on-trial NN O O
average NN O O
supplementary NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
100 NN O O
IU NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
high NN O O
users NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
on-trial NN O O
supplementary NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
high NN O O
users NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
high NN O O
supplementary NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
users NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
users NN O O
( NN O O
0.008 NN O O
versus NN O O
0.023 NN O O
mm/y NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-INT
within NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
within NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Supplementary NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lipid-lowering NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
while NN O O
the NN O O
process NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
confined NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
arterial NN O O
wall NN O O
( NN O O
early NN O O
preintrusive NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8940983)

The NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
three NN O O
Haemophilus NN O I-INT
influenzae NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
conjugate NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
vaccination NN O I-PAR
series NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Philippine NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serum NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
three NN O O
Haemophilus NN O I-INT
influenzae NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Hib NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
capsular NN O I-INT
polysaccharide-protein NN O I-INT
conjugate NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRP-OMP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PRP-T NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
HbOC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
Philippine NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
vaccination NN O I-PAR
series NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Hib NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Hib NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Vaccination NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
Expanded NN O O
Program NN O O
of NN O O
Immunization NN O O
schedule NN O O
. NN O O

Sera NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Hib NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Anti-Hib NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Farr-type NN O I-OUT
radioimmunoassay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.3626 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevaccination NN O I-OUT
anti-Hib NN O I-OUT
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GMC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
Hib NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GMC NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
GMC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highest NN O O
for NN O O
PRP-T NN O O
( NN O O
6.62 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
HbOC NN O O
( NN O O
1.9 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
PRP-OMP NN O O
( NN O O
1.06 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lowest NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.11 NN O O
microgram/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
Hib NN O I-INT
conjugate NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRP-T NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
HbOC NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
PRP-OMP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
immunogenic NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
three NN O O
primary NN O O
doses NN O O
among NN O O
Philippine NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8942899)

Is NN O O
there NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
lateral NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
lifts NN O I-INT
with NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
composite NN O I-INT
rhytidectomies NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Presented NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
limited NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lateral NN O I-INT
SMASectomy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
composite NN O I-INT
rhytidectomies NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
lift NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
rhytidectomy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
procedures NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
Manhattan NN O I-PAR
Eye NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Ear NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Throat NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
well-defined NN O O
surgical NN O O
descriptions NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
courses NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
clinically NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Photographs NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Photographs NN O O
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
independent NN O O
experienced NN O O
face NN O O
lift NN O O
surgeons NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
comprises NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nineteen NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
rhytidectomies NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
two NN O O
underwent NN O O
secondary NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
lifts NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
extended NN O O
SMAS NN O O
procedure NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
side NN O O
; NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
5 NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
lateral NN O O
SMASectomy NN O O
) NN O O
face NN O O
lift NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
side NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
in NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
opposite NN O O
side NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O I-INT
rhytidectomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
few NN O O
. NN O O

Temporary NN O I-OUT
weakness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
buccal NN O I-OUT
branch NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
extensive NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
table NN O O
at NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
reversal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
midfacial NN O I-OUT
ptosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flattening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nasolabial NN O I-OUT
folds NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
both NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
composite NN O I-INT
rhytidectomies NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
composite NN O O
flap NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
dramatic NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
nasolabial NN O I-OUT
folds NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
commissure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
swelling NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
and NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
became NN O O
reactivated NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
noticeable NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
midface NN O O
and NN O O
nasolabial NN O O
folds NN O O
were NN O O
lost NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
discernible NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
facial NN O O
halves NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
again NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
sides NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
6- NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
postoperative NN O O
photographs NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
detectable NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
routine NN O O
facial NN O O
plasty NN O O
, NN O O
comparable NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
with NN O O
limited NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lateral NN O I-INT
SMASectomy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
face NN O O
lifts NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
SMAS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
composite NN O I-INT
rhytidectomies NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
procedures NN O O
are NN O O
lacking NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
midface NN O I-OUT
ptosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nasolabial NN O I-OUT
folds NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
increased NN O O
surgical NN O O
risks NN O O
, NN O O
morbidity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
convalescence NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
more NN O O
extensive NN O O
procedures NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
warranted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8960488)

Dental NN O O
bacteremia NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Bacteremia NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
dental NN O I-INT
extraction NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
regarded NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
bacterial NN O O
endocarditis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
recommended NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
tooth NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
be NN O O
given NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
dental NN O O
procedures NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
extractions NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
cause NN O O
bacteremias NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
procedures NN O O
routinely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O O
dentistry NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
cultures NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
30 NN O O
s NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
dental NN O O
operative NN O O
procedures NN O O
in NN O O
735 NN O I-PAR
anesthetized NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2-16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four NN O O
procedures NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
conservative NN O O
dentistry NN O O
caused NN O O
bacteremias NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
: NN O O
polishing NN O I-INT
teeth NN O I-INT
24.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
intraligamental NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
96.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
rubber NN O I-INT
dam NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
matrix NN O I-INT
band NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
wedge NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
32.1 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
toothbrushing NN O O
alone NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
bacteremia NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
38.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
organisms NN O O
isolated NN O O
were NN O O
typical NN O O
of NN O O
odontogenic NN O I-OUT
bacteremias NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
that NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
isolates NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
varieties NN O O
of NN O O
viridans NN O O
streptococci NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
wider NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
procedures NN O O
than NN O O
was NN O O
previously NN O O
documented NN O O
cause NN O O
bacteremia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8964729)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
fenoterol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
effort NN O O
sensation NN O O
and NN O O
fatigue NN O O
during NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
threshold NN O O
loading NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
fenoterol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
effort NN O O
sensation NN O O
( NN O O
IES NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
muscle NN O O
fatigue NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
threshold NN O O
loading NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
was NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
maximal NN O O
static NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
mouth NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
PI NN O O
, NN O O
mmax NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
functional NN O O
residual NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duty NN O O
cycle NN O O
was NN O O
0.5 NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
continued NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
loaded NN O O
breathing NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
mouth NN O O
pressure NN O O
could NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
be NN O O
maintained NN O O
( NN O O
endurance NN O O
time NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IES NN O O
was NN O O
scored NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
Borg NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Either NN O O
fenoterol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
loading NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
endurance NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
fenoterol NN O O
( NN O O
34.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.6 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
22.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.1 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
high- NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
low-frequency NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
diaphragmatic NN O I-OUT
electromyogram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EMGdi NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
loading NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
with NN O O
fenoterol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
EMGdi NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
loading NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
on NN O O
fenoterol NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mmax NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
transdiaphragmatic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Pdi NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similarly NN O O
decreased NN O O
after NN O O
loading NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
IES NN O I-OUT
rose NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
loading NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
fenoterol NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Pdi NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
integrated NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
EMGdi NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
fenoterol NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fenoterol NN O O
treatment NN O O
increased NN O O
both NN O O
superimposed NN O I-OUT
Pdi NN O I-OUT
twitch NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Pdi NN O I-OUT
twitch NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relaxed NN O I-OUT
diaphragm NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1-superimposed NN O I-OUT
Pdi NN O I-OUT
twitch/Pdi NN O I-OUT
twitch NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relaxed NN O I-OUT
diaphragm NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
we NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
fenoterol NN O O
reduces NN O O
diaphragmatic NN O O
fatigue NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
command NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
diaphragm NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
IES NN O O
during NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
threshold NN O O
loading NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
prolongation NN O O
of NN O O
endurance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8966003)

[ NN O O
Drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
condylomata NN O I-PAR
acuminata NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
seeks NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
two NN O O
candidate NN O O
regimens NN O O
( NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjuvants NN O O
to NN O O
optimally NN O O
performed NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
condylomata NN O I-OUT
acuminata NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Skillful NN O O
laser NN O O
ablation NN O O
can NN O O
remove NN O O
any NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
papillomavirus-associated NN O O
vulvar NN O O
disease NN O O
but NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
prevent NN O O
reactivation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surrounding NN O O
latent NN O O
viral NN O O
reservoir NN O O
during NN O O
postoperative NN O O
healing NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
and NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
are NN O O
relatively NN O O
ineffective NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
involves NN O O
118 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
laser-CO2 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
52 NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
final NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
43 NN O O
of NN O O
52 NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
assessable NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
were NN O O
controlled NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
ablation NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
17 NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
of NN O O
32 NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
laser NN O O
only NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
, NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
effective NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
deleulking NN O I-INT
, NN O O
can NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8971536)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
flat NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
acuminata NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
condylomata NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CO2 NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
vaporization NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Interferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFA NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
C.A NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
F.C NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
genital NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
1986 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
1991 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1372 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
F.C NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
C.A NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
intraepithelial NN O I-PAR
neoplasia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
submitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
peoscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O I-PAR
thousand NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nineteen NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
74.27 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
penile NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
caused NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
HPV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
these NN O O
505 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
C.A NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
F.C NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
F.C NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
C.A NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
best NN O O
treatment NN O O
modalities NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
kind NN O O
of NN O O
lesion NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
( NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
98.27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
CO2 NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
vaporization NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
93.93 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CO2 NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
vaporization NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
87.23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
we NN O O
believe NN O O
that NN O O
IFN NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
excellent NN O O
results NN O O
as NN O O
first NN O O
line NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
CO2 NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
vaporization NN O I-INT
or/plus NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
C.A NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
F.C NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
condylomata NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9006598)

Improving NN O O
care NN O I-PAR
givers NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
satisfaction NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
information NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
hospitalization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
competition NN O O
for NN O O
patient NN O O
volume NN O O
escalates NN O O
among NN O O
hospital NN O O
providers NN O O
, NN O O
administrators NN O O
must NN O O
identify NN O O
ways NN O O
to NN O O
attract NN O O
new NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
maintain NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
increase NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Family NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
givers NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
greatly NN O O
influence NN O O
individuals NN O O
' NN O O
choices NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
matters NN O O
of NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
healthcare NN O O
services NN O O
and NN O O
providers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
nurse-initiated NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
family NN O O
care NN O O
giver NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
by NN O O
enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
provision NN O O
of NN O O
patient-specific NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
, NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
components NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
implications NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9034258)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O I-PAR
intentional NN O I-INT
hemodilution NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
extravasation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
intentional NN O O
hemodilution NN O O
with NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
albumin NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
extravasation NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
intravascular NN O O
albumin NN O O
and NN O O
fluid NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hemodiluted NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
4 NN O O
hrs NN O O
) NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Autologous NN O I-INT
technetium-99m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
99mTc NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-labeled NN O I-INT
red NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
indium-oxine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
111 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-labeled NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
albumin NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
injected NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
during NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
at NN O O
T NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
blood NN O O
volume NN O O
and NN O O
albumin NN O O
diffusion NN O O
space NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
tetrapolar NN O O
electrical NN O O
impedance NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
extracellular NN O O
fluid NN O O
volume NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
hemodiluted NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
15 NN O O
mL/kg NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
over NN O O
30 NN O O
mins NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
mins NN O O
to NN O O
T NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
mins NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
replaced NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
equal NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
albumin NN O O
solution NN O O
( NN O O
0.6 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
albumin NN O I-OUT
diffusion NN O I-OUT
space NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
colloid NN O I-OUT
oncotic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
electrical NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
mins NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
240 NN O O
mins NN O O
) NN O O
hemodilution NN O O
. NN O O

Urine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
T NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
mins NN O O
to NN O O
T NN O O
= NN O O
240 NN O O
mins NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
at NN O O
T NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
mins NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
hemodilution NN O O
( NN O O
hematocrit NN O O
30 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
steeper NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
albumin NN O I-OUT
diffusion NN O I-OUT
space NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
progressive NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
electrical NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
extravasation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.052 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.007 NN O O
mL/kg/min NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.038 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.020 NN O O
mL/kg/min NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
T NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
min NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
shown NN O O
any NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
value NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
expected NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
> NN O O
3 NN O O
mL/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Urine NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
0.7 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.4 NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
1.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.0 NN O I-PAR
mL/min NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
.05 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
comparable NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
colloid NN O I-OUT
oncotic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
preoperative NN O O
hemodilution NN O O
using NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
albumin NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
1:1 NN O O
volume NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
blood NN O O
substitution NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
prolonged NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
blood NN O O
losses NN O O
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
extravasation NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
albumin NN O O
and NN O O
fluid NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
interstitial NN O O
tissues NN O O
, NN O O
impeding NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
isovolemia NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
infused NN O O
colloid NN O O
solution NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
blood NN O O
during NN O O
preoperative NN O I-PAR
hemodilution NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9070546)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
arbutamine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
in NN O O
diagnosing NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
ischemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Arbutamine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
catecholamine NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
stress NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
arbutamine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
symptom-limited NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
to NN O O
induce NN O O
echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Arbutamine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
computerized NN O O
closed-loop NN O O
delivery NN O O
system NN O O
that NN O O
controls NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
arbutamine NN O I-INT
toward NN O O
a NN O O
predefined NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
increase NN O O
and NN O O
maximum NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
limit NN O O
. NN O O

Beta NN O O
blockers NN O O
were NN O O
stopped NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
both NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

Stress NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
for NN O O
intolerable NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
or NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
ischemia NN O O
( NN O O
new NN O O
or NN O O
worsening NN O O
wall NN O O
motion NN O O
abnormality NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
target NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
age NN O O
predicted NN O O
maximum NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
plateau NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
arbutamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
arbutamine NN O I-INT
only NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-INT
only NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
angiographic NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
lumen NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
narrowing NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rate-pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
stress NN O O
modalities NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
exercise NN O O
( NN O O
11,308 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2,443 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
arbutamine NN O O
( NN O O
9,486 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2,479 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
during NN O O
arbutamine NN O I-INT
stress NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
than NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
testing NN O O
( NN O O
17.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.4 NN O O
versus NN O O
9.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.2 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
interpretable NN O O
echo NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
arbutamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sensitivity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
arbutamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
36 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
tremor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
arbutamine NN O I-INT
stress NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
discontinued NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
had NN O O
premature NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
beats NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
had NN O O
premature NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
contractions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resolved NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
sequelae NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
arbutamine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
induce NN O O
echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
despite NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
rate-pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Arbutamine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
provides NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
reliable NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
echocardiography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9078197)

Randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left-ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
EMIAT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
European NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
Infarct NN O O
Amiodarone NN O O
Trial NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Ventricular NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
after NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
left-ventricular NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Previous NN O O
attempts NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
and NN O O
suppress NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drugs NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
or NN O O
actually NN O O
increase NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

Amiodarone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
powerful NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drug NN O O
with NN O O
several NN O O
potentially NN O O
beneficial NN O O
actions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
small-scale NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
postulated NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
might NN O O
reduce NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
death NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
impaired NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
ventricular NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
European NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
Infarct NN O O
Amiodarone NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
EMIAT NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arrhythmic NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
survivors NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
left-ventricular NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
( NN O O
LVEF NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
. NN O O

Intention-to-treat NN O O
and NN O O
on-treatment NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
done NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
EMIAT NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
1486 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
743 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
amiodarone NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
743 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
21 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

All-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
103 NN O I-PAR
deaths NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
amiodarone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
102 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0-58 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
arrhythmic NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTERPRETATION NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
systematic NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
depressed NN O O
left-ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
after NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
proarrhythmia NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
arrhythmic NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
whom NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
indicated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9105060)

Leukotriene NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Tokyo NN O O
Joshi-Idai NN O O
Asthma NN O O
Research NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
leukotriene NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
ONO-1078 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pranlukast NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
exacerbations NN O O
during NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
79 NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1,500 NN O I-PAR
microg/d NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
inhaled NN O I-INT
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BDI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
3.1 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
BDI NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
FEV1 NN O I-PAR
percentage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
predicted NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
80.7 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
2-wk NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
BDI NN O O
were NN O O
halved NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
orally NN O I-INT
ONO-1078 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
450 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
0.33 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.20 NN O O
L NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
wk NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Likewise NN O O
, NN O O
morning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
evening NN O I-OUT
PEF NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
46 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7 NN O O
L/min NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
L/min NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
contrast NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
above NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ONO-1078 NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nighttime NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
beta2-agonist NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
they NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ONO-1078 NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
eosinophil NN O I-OUT
cationic NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exhaled NN O I-OUT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ONO-1078 NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
leukotriene NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
ONO-1078 NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
the NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
deterioration NN O O
provoked NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
6-wk NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
BDI NN O O
into NN O O
half NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9109702)

Comparative NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
with NN O O
negligible NN O O
systemic NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
route NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
administered NN O O
via NN O O
metered-dose NN O O
inhaler NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inhaled NN O I-PAR
corticosteroid NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
342 NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-OUT
forced NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
predicted NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
250 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
via NN O O
a NN O O
breath-actuated NN O O
inhalation NN O O
device NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Diskhaler NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
propionate NN O O
groups NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
0.43 NN O O
L NN O O
to NN O O
0.47 NN O O
L. NN O O
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
of NN O O
0.22 NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
remaining NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
developing NN O O
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
exacerbating NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
propionate NN O O
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Asthma NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
supplemental NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
albuterol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nighttime NN O I-OUT
awakenings NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O O
treatment NN O O
also NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
propionate NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
at NN O O
endpoint NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
propionate NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
drug-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Fluticasone NN O O
propionate NN O O
powder NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
250 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9134405)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
miscarriage NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
surgically NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
medically NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Miscarriage NN O O
treated NN O O
surgically NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
medically NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Surgery NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
medical NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
attendances NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
g/dl NN O O
; NN O O
CI95 NN O O
% NN O O
= NN O O
0.3-1.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9182738)

Clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
speed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subgingival NN O I-OUT
calculus NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
single-rooted NN O O
teeth NN O O
with NN O O
diamond-coated NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
tips NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Several NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
found NN O O
incomplete NN O O
calculus NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
periodontal NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
traditional NN O O
hand NN O O
curets NN O O
, NN O O
sonic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ultrasonic NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
speed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subgingival NN O I-OUT
calculus NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
new NN O I-INT
diamond-coated NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
tips NN O I-INT
on NN O O
single-rooted NN O O
teeth NN O O
. NN O O

Single NN O O
session NN O O
subgingival NN O O
scaling NN O O
and NN O O
root NN O O
planing NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
probing NN O I-PAR
depths NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
patient NN O O
provided NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
hand NN O I-INT
curets NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HAND NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
smooth NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
tip NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
US NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fine NN O I-INT
grit NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FINDIAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
medium NN O I-INT
grit NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MEDDIAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diamond-coated NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
tips NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
clean NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
smooth NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
region NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
each NN O O
instrument NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
therapists NN O O
with NN O O
differing NN O O
experience NN O O
levels NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
atraumatically NN O O
extracted NN O O
, NN O O
stored NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
surfactant NN O O
, NN O O
photographed NN O O
at NN O O
10X NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
calculus NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pocket NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
control NN O O
surface NN O O
calculated NN O O
by NN O O
histometric NN O O
point NN O O
counting NN O O
. NN O O

ANOVA NN O O
and NN O O
paired NN O O
t NN O O
tests NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
remaining NN O I-OUT
calculus NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
treated NN O O
versus NN O O
control NN O O
surfaces NN O O
was NN O O
HAND NN O O
4.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.3 NN O O
versus NN O O
57.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28.2 NN O O
, NN O O
US NN O O
4.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.4 NN O O
versus NN O O
54.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
25.9 NN O O
, NN O O
FINDIAM NN O O
4.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.2 NN O O
versus NN O O
37.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22.1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
MEDDIAM NN O O
3.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.2 NN O O
versus NN O O
50.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20.1 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
seconds NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
HAND NN O O
289 NN O O
+/- NN O O
193 NN O O
, NN O O
US NN O O
194 NN O O
+/- NN O O
67 NN O O
, NN O O
FINDIAM NN O O
167 NN O O
+/- NN O O
71 NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
MEDDIAM NN O O
147 NN O O
+/- NN O O
92 NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
powered NN O O
instruments NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
HAND NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
a NN O O
0 NN O O
= NN O O
smooth NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
= NN O O
rough NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
often NN O O
HAND NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
smooth NN O I-OUT
surfaces NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10/20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
powered NN O O
tips NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
types NN O O
slight NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
roughness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10/20 NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
US NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
roughness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7/20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
calculus NN O I-OUT
remaining NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
roughness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
treating NN O I-OUT
clinicians NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
their NN O O
varying NN O O
experience NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
calculus NN O I-OUT
remaining NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
< NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
instruments NN O O
given NN O O
time NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
given NN O O
root NN O O
surface NN O O
. NN O O

Root NN O I-OUT
roughness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
slightly NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
powered NN O O
tips NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
powered NN O O
instruments NN O O
took NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
HAND NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
DIAM NN O O
tips NN O O
took NN O O
less NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
US NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Diamond-coated NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
tips NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
much NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
than NN O O
HAND NN O O
or NN O O
US NN O O
in NN O O
removing NN O O
calculus NN O O
in NN O O
moderate-deep NN O O
probing NN O O
depths NN O O
on NN O O
single-rooted NN O O
teeth NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9203648)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hyperimmune NN O I-INT
anti-human NN O I-INT
immunodeficiency NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
to NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
newborns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pediatric NN O O
AIDS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Group NN O O
Protocol NN O O
185 NN O O
Pharmacokinetic NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hyperimmune NN O I-INT
anti-human NN O I-INT
immunodeficiency NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HIVIG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
maternal-infant NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
immunoglobulin NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IVIG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
HIVIG NN O I-PAR
maternal-infant NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
transmission NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
half-life NN O O
and NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
distribution NN O O
( NN O O
Vd NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
mL/kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
32 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
154 NN O O
mL/kg NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
monthly NN O O
infusions NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
stable NN O O
4 NN O O
mL/kg/day NN O O
clearance NN O O
. NN O O

Transplacental NN O O
passage NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

Newborn NN O O
single-dose NN O O
half-life NN O O
, NN O O
Vd NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clearance NN O O
were NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
143 NN O O
mL/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
mL/kg/day NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

HIVIG NN O I-OUT
rapidly NN O I-OUT
cleared NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
complex-dissociated NN O I-OUT
p24 NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
stable NN O O
. NN O O

Mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
103 NN O O
maternal NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
infant NN O O
infusions NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
chemistry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
immunologic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

HIVIG NN O I-INT
is NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
newborns NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
clears NN O O
antigenemia NN O O
, NN O O
crosses NN O O
the NN O O
placenta NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
exhibits NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
preparations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9207470)

Circulating NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
in NN O O
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
circulating NN O O
clonal NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
parameters NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
E9486 NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O O
blood NN O O
B NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
myeloma NN O O
have NN O O
generated NN O O
controversy NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
exact NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
circulating NN O O
clonal NN O O
tumor NN O O
B NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
reports NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
markedly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
myeloma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
shares NN O O
clonotypic NN O O
rearrangements NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
malignant NN O O
plasma NN O O
cell NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-PAR
flow NN O I-PAR
cytometry NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ECOG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
E9486 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
628 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
E9486 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
521 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
companion NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
E9487 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
CD19 NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
myeloma NN O O
patients NN O O
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O O
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
flow NN O I-INT
cytometry NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Approximately NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
circulating NN O I-OUT
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
population NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
myeloma NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
age-matched NN O O
, NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
circulating NN O O
clonal NN O O
cells NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
myeloma NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
clonotypic NN O O
, NN O O
quantitative NN O O
allele-specific NN O O
oligonucleotide-polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
( NN O O
PCR NN O O
) NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
PCR NN O I-INT
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
clonal NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
.009 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O O
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
B-cell NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
125 NN O O
microL NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.033 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
relationship NN O O
exists NN O O
between NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
125/microL NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
CD19 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
CD19 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
predicted NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
inverse NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
CD19 NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
infections NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
versus NN O O
high NN O O
CD19 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0202 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
CD19 NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
plasma NN O O
cell NN O O
labeling NN O O
indices NN O O
, NN O O
beta2-microglobulin NN O O
, NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
plasmablastic NN O O
morphology NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
infections NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
low NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
prognostic NN O O
sign NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
circulating NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
strongly NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
low NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
prognostic NN O O
sign NN O O
in NN O O
myeloma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CD19+ NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
in NN O O
myeloma NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
parameter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9221965)

Clozapine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Huntington NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
atypical NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
chorea NN O O
, NN O O
voluntary NN O O
motor NN O O
performance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
disability NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Huntington NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Huntington NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
31 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
week NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Chorea NN O O
was NN O O
scored NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
abnormal NN O O
involuntary NN O O
movement NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
AIMS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
chorea NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
unified NN O O
Huntington NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
UHDRS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
judgement NN O O
of NN O O
video NN O O
recordings NN O O
. NN O O

Voluntary NN O O
motor NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
UHDRS NN O O
motor NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
regarding NN O O
functional NN O O
disability NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O O
patients NN O O
already NN O O
used NN O O
other NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
kept NN O O
unchanged NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
naive NN O O
and NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
separately NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clozapine NN O I-INT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
chorea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
naive NN O O
patients NN O O
only NN O O
( NN O O
AIMS NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
improvement NN O O
seemed NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
clozapine NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chorea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UHDRS NN O I-OUT
chorea NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
video NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

Clozapine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
chorea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
already NN O O
receiving NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Voluntary NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
with NN O O
clozapine NN O O
. NN O O

Neuroleptic NN O O
naive NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
aggravation NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
reflecting NN O O
the NN O O
frequent NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
forced NN O O
trial NN O O
termination NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
another NN O O
eight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
consisted NN O O
mainly NN O O
of NN O O
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anticholinergic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Clozapine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
little NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Huntington NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
although NN O O
individual NN O O
patients NN O O
may NN O O
tolerate NN O O
doses NN O O
high NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
chorea NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
encountered NN O O
, NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
restraint NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9225710)

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
determines NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
performance NN O O
tasks NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
at NN O O
school NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
3-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-PAR
physician NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
office-based NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Third NN O I-PAR
Edition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Revised NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
child NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
buspirone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
interval NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
Conners NN O I-OUT
abbreviated NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
by NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
performance NN O O
tasks NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
at NN O O
school NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
linear NN O O
models NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
F NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

Buspirone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacious NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
for NN O O
decreasing NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
completed NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
helping NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
his NN O O
natural NN O O
daily NN O O
settings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
buspirone NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
; NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9316683)

Nimodipine NN O I-INT
pharmacotherapeutic NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
inpatient NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
preclinical NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
utility NN O O
for NN O O
voltage-sensitive NN O O
calcium NN O O
channel NN O O
blockers NN O O
( NN O O
VSCCBs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cocaine NN O I-PAR
addiction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
following NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
VSCCB NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
attenuating NN O O
cocaine NN O O
craving NN O O
in NN O O
66 NN O I-PAR
recently NN O I-PAR
abstinent NN O I-PAR
cocaine-dependent NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
utilizing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
12-step NN O I-PAR
milieu-oriented NN O I-PAR
psychosocial NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
While NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
mg NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
background NN O O
or NN O O
cue-induced NN O O
cocaine NN O O
craving NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
suggestion NN O O
that NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
might NN O O
attenuate NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
cocaine-induced NN O O
brain NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
smooth NN O I-OUT
pursuit NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
evaluating NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cocaine NN O O
addiction NN O O
is NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
might NN O O
have NN O O
anticraving NN O O
and NN O O
mood-stabilizing NN O O
properties NN O O
and NN O O
cardio- NN O O
and NN O O
neuroprotective NN O O
properties NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
of NN O O
cocaine NN O O
intoxication NN O O
and NN O O
might NN O O
possibly NN O O
even NN O O
reverse NN O O
some NN O O
cocaine-induced NN O O
brain NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
VSCCBs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
cocaine NN O O
addiction NN O O
appears NN O O
an NN O O
attractive NN O O
avenue NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
medication NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9322152)

Acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
FK NN O I-INT
506- NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-PAR
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
A-treated NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
endomyocardial NN O O
biopsy NN O O
pathologic NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9342133)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
on NN O O
EEG NN O I-OUT
seizure NN O I-OUT
morphology NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
RUL NN O O
ECT NN O O
. NN O O

Intravenous NN O O
beta-blockers NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
controlling NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
electroconvulsive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
seizure NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
seizure NN O O
duration NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
ECT NN O O
grows NN O O
less NN O O
certain NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
growing NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
seizure NN O O
morphology NN O O
predicts NN O O
the NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ECT NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
on NN O O
seizure NN O I-OUT
morphology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
69 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
12.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
ECT NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
esmolol NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
seizures NN O O
were NN O O
blindly NN O O
rated NN O O
for NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
convulsion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
electroencephalogram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
seizure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
seizure NN O I-OUT
regularity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postictal NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Esmolol NN O O
shortened NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
convulsion NN O O
and NN O O
degraded NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ictal NN O I-OUT
regularity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Routine NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
esmolol NN O O
before NN O O
ECT NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
ictal NN O I-OUT
regularity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Careful NN O O
consideration NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
esmolol NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
deleterious NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
electrophysiologic NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O

Esmolol NN O O
may NN O O
still NN O O
be NN O O
indicated NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
case-by-case NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
extreme NN O O
tachycardia NN O O
or NN O O
hypertension NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ECT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
presumably NN O O
poses NN O O
no NN O O
problem NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ECT NN O O
if NN O O
given NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
seizure NN O O
is NN O O
over NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9351400)

Dose-response NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
RRR-alpha-tocopherol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
all-racemic NN O I-INT
alpha-tocopherol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
LDL NN O I-PAR
oxidation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Much NN O O
data NN O O
have NN O O
accrued NN O O
in NN O O
support NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
that NN O O
oxidation NN O O
of NN O O
LDL NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
early NN O O
step NN O O
in NN O O
atherogenesis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
most NN O O
consistent NN O O
data NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
micronutrient NN O O
antioxidants NN O O
and NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
relate NN O O
to NN O O
alpha-tocopherol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
predominant NN O O
lipid-soluble NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
in NN O O
LDL NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
scant NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
RRR-AT NN O O
and NN O O
all-racemic NN O O
( NN O O
rac NN O O
) NN O O
-AT NN O O
on NN O O
LDL NN O O
oxidizability NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
RRR-AT NN O O
and NN O O
all-rac-AT NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
LDL NN O O
oxidation NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-response NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
RRR-AT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
all-rac-AT NN O I-INT
at NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
, NN O O
400 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
800 NN O O
IU/d NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
LDL NN O O
AT NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
LDL NN O O
oxidation NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
79 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Copper-catalyzed NN O O
oxidation NN O O
of NN O O
LDL NN O O
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
conjugated NN O O
dienes NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
peroxides NN O O
over NN O O
an NN O O
8-hour NN O O
time NN O O
course NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
again NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
AT NN O O
, NN O O
lipid-standardized NN O O
AT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
LDL NN O O
AT NN O O
levels NN O O
rose NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
fashion NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
RRR-AT NN O O
and NN O O
all-rac-AT NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipid-standardized NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
RRR-AT NN O O
and NN O O
all-rac-AT NN O O
supplementation NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
dose NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
phases NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
prolonged NN O O
with NN O O
doses NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
400 NN O O
IU/d NN O O
of NN O O
RRR-AT NN O O
and NN O O
all-rac-AT NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
conjugated-dienes NN O O
assay NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
400 NN O O
IU/d NN O O
of NN O O
RRR-AT NN O O
and NN O O
800 NN O O
IU/d NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
AT NN O O
by NN O O
lipid NN O O
peroxide NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

Again NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
RRR-AT NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
all-rac-AT NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
enrichment NN O O
of NN O O
LDL NN O O
with NN O O
RRR-AT NN O O
and NN O O
all-rac-AT NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
RRR-AT NN O O
or NN O O
all-rac-AT NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
similar NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
LDL NN O O
AT NN O O
levels NN O O
at NN O O
equivalent NN O O
IU NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
copper-catalyzed NN O O
LDL NN O O
oxidation NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
evident NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
400 NN O O
IU/d NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
forms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9393422)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
on NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
endosseous NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2,641 NN O I-PAR
implants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O O
College NN O O
of NN O O
Surgeons NN O O
, NN O O
complex NN O O
oral NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
transoral NN O O
placement NN O O
of NN O O
endosseous NN O I-PAR
implants NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
require NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
field NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
implantology NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
controversial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
utilization NN O O
varies NN O O
widely NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
in NN O O
implant NN O O
surgery NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
Dental NN O O
Implant NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Research NN O O
Group NN O O
clinical NN O O
implant NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
or NN O O
postoperative NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
coverage NN O O
was NN O O
left NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
discretion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
osseointegration NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
uncovering NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
failures NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
when NN O O
preoperative NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9398110)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
imidapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasma NN O O
plasminogen NN O O
activator NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
early NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
AMI NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
ACE NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
imidapril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
imidapril NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ACE NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
imidapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
imidapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
IU/L NN O O
vs NN O O
7.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
IU/L NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
PAI NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
gradually NN O O
to NN O O
peak NN O O
levels NN O O
16 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
imidapril NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
decreased NN O O
gradually NN O O
but NN O O
remained NN O O
high NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PAI NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
imidapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
decreased NN O O
rapidly NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
7.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.9 NN O O
IU/ml NN O O
vs NN O O
18.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.5 NN O O
IU/ml NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
admission NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
imidapril NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
65.9 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
49.1 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
imidapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9419170)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
valaciclovir NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O I-OUT
viremia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
viruria NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Group NN O O
Protocol NN O O
204/Glaxo NN O O
Wellcome NN O O
123-014 NN O O
International NN O O
CMV NN O O
Prophylaxis NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Samples NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
every NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
from NN O O
310 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entering NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
valaciclovir NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
acyclovir NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Samples NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
under NN O O
code NN O O
by NN O O
polymerase NN O I-INT
chain NN O I-INT
reaction NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PCR NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
5 NN O O
for NN O O
blood NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0-15 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
for NN O O
urine NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0-15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
baseline NN O O
PCR NN O I-OUT
viremia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PCR NN O I-OUT
viruria NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
future NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O O
( NN O O
CMV NN O O
) NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
greatest NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
valaciclovir NN O I-INT
on NN O O
CMV NN O I-OUT
disease NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
PCR-positive NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
PCR-negative NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
PCR NN O I-OUT
viremia NN O I-OUT
provides NN O O
prognostic NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
CMV NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
AIDS NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
valaciclovir NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
activity NN O O
as NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
preemptive NN O O
and NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9474450)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
special-effect NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Crazy NN O I-INT
Lenses NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PURPOSE NN O O
Special-effect NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
( NN O O
opaque NN O O
, NN O O
tinted NN O O
soft NN O O
contact NN O O
lenses NN O O
that NN O O
incorporate NN O O
decorative NN O O
images NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
cateyes NN O O
, NN O O
stars NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
hearts NN O O
to NN O O
alter NN O O
eye NN O O
color NN O O
and NN O O
structure NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
become NN O O
increasingly NN O O
popular NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
such NN O O
lenses NN O O
impair NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-INT
clear NN O I-INT
soft NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
special-effect NN O I-INT
soft NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Crazy NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
fit NN O O
in NN O O
changing NN O O
sequence NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
parameters NN O O
studied NN O O
included NN O O
: NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
glare NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mesopic NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
glare NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
following NN O O
parameters NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
to NN O O
0.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.23 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Crazy NN O O
lens NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
1.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.13 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clear NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Goldmann NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
constriction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
isopters NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
III/4 NN O O
, NN O O
I/4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
I/3 NN O O
. NN O O

Mesopic NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
glare NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
1:2.5 NN O O
to NN O O
1:7.4 NN O O
. NN O O

Contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
photopic NN O O
condition NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
glare NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
scotopic NN O O
condition NN O O
without NN O O
glare NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
special-effect NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
lens NN O I-OUT
wearing NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Special-effect NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
many NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
some NN O O
wearers NN O I-PAR
this NN O O
may NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
activities NN O O
where NN O O
excellent NN O O
vision NN O O
is NN O O
crucial NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
driving NN O O
a NN O O
car NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9512152)

Primary NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
triple NN O O
procedure NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
filtration NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
on NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
triple NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prognostic NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
filtration NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
triple NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Those NN O O
factors NN O O
include NN O O
being NN O O
of NN O O
African-American NN O I-PAR
race NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
preoperative NN O O
intraocular NN O O
pressure NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
on NN O O
maximum NN O O
tolerated NN O O
medications NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
being NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
medications NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Study NN O O
patients NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
197 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
adjunctive NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
101 NN O I-INT
eyes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
101 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
adjunctive NN O I-INT
subconjunctival NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
96 NN O I-INT
eyes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
96 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
glaucoma NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Kaplan-Meier NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
comparisons NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
made NN O O
between NN O O
respective NN O O
subgroups NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
prognostic NN O O
indicators NN O O
for NN O O
filtration NN O O
failures NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
stringent NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
filtration NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
triple NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.117 NN O O
) NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
filtration NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
primary NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
triple NN O O
procedure NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Adjunctive NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
filtration NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
triple NN O O
procedure NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subgroups NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
filtration NN O O
failure NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
triple NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subgroups NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
change NN O O
the NN O O
filtration NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
triple NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
selective NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
triple NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9512674)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
to NN O O
control NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
during NN O O
multiple NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
393 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
third NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
200 NN O O
) NN O O
cycle NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
parallel-group NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Granisetron NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dose NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
mg/m2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Total NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
retching NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hr NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Cycles NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
micrograms/kg NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Cycles NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
micrograms/kg NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
dose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
granisetron NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
repeat NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O I-PAR
cisplatin-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
remains NN O O
effective NN O O
with NN O O
repeat NN O O
cycle NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9514454)

Comparative NN O O
dose NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
of NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lovastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluvastatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
the NN O O
CURVES NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
8-week NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O O
dose NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl NN O I-INT
coenzyme NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HMG-CoA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lovastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluvastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg. NN O I-INT
Investigators NN O O
enrolled NN O O
534 NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
low-density NN O I-PAR
lipoprotein NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
LDL NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
4.2 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
triglycerides NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
400 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
4.5 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
mean NN O O
percent NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Atorvastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
produced NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
-38 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
-46 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-51 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
milligram NN O O
equivalent NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lovastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
fluvastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Atorvastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
produced NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
lovastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fluvastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg. NN O O
Atorvastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
produced NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
milligram NN O O
equivalent NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lovastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
fluvastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
reductase NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
studied NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O O
elevations NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
transaminases NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
myositis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9594153)

[ NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irresectable NN O I-PAR
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
repeated NN O I-INT
transient NN O I-INT
dearterialization NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

A NN O O
joint NN O O
clinical NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
between NN O O
SUMS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Lund NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
irresectable NN O I-PAR
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
HPB NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
First NN O I-PAR
Affiliated NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
SUMS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Feb. NN O I-PAR
1994 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
hepatic NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
ligation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HAL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
transient NN O I-INT
dearterialization NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ALT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AFP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
RTD NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
HAL NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
objective NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AFP NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
RTD NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
8.2 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
79.7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
HAL NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.1 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
35.8 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
postulated NN O O
that NN O O
RTD NN O I-INT
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
rapid NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
collateral NN O O
circulation NN O O
and NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxygen-derived NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
responsible NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ischemic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hepatic NN O O
tumours NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
consider NN O O
that NN O O
RTD NN O I-INT
would NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
polliative NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
HCC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9601831)

Transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
myofascial NN O O
pain NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
conservative NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bite NN O I-INT
plate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
self-physiotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
myofascial NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
as NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MPD NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
subthreshold NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
frequency NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
Hz NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pulse NN O I-PAR
width NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
milliseconds NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
modulation NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sham NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
visits NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
at NN O O
each NN O O
visit NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
for NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
4.80 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subthreshold NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
symptom NN O O
relief NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
conservative NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9657576)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
salmeterol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
salbutamol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
salmeterol NN O I-INT
might NN O O
modify NN O O
the NN O O
dose-response NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
inhaled NN O I-OUT
salbutamol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
partially NN O I-PAR
reversible NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
partially NN O I-PAR
reversible NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
formoterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
salmeterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
non-consecutive NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Spirometric NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
h. NN O O
A NN O O
dose-response NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
inhaled NN O I-OUT
salbutamol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
then NN O O
constructed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
cumulative NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dose NN O O
increments NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
intervals NN O O
with NN O O
measurements NN O O
being NN O O
made NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Formoterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
salmeterol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
elicited NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
forced NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
L NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
0.05 NN O O
; NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
0.34 NN O O
; NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
0.27 NN O O
; NN O O
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
0.23 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Dose-dependent NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
values NN O O
( NN O O
L NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
salbutamol NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
cumulative NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
, NN O O
400 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
800 NN O O
microg NN O O
= NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1.06 NN O O
, NN O O
1.28 NN O O
, NN O O
1.35 NN O O
, NN O O
1.39 NN O O
, NN O O
1.41 NN O O
; NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1.33 NN O O
, NN O O
1.37 NN O O
, NN O O
1.41 NN O O
, NN O O
1.44 NN O O
, NN O O
1.44 NN O O
; NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1.30 NN O O
, NN O O
1.33 NN O O
, NN O O
1.36 NN O O
, NN O O
1.39 NN O O
, NN O O
1.42 NN O O
; NN O O
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1.27 NN O O
, NN O O
1.34 NN O O
, NN O O
1.37 NN O O
, NN O O
1.41 NN O O
, NN O O
1.40 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
forced NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
salbutamol NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
salmeterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
clearly NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
salmeterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oxitropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
preclude NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
inducing NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
bronchodilation NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
partially NN O I-PAR
reversible NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9672054)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Neurobiological NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
implicated NN O O
the NN O O
dopamine NN O O
and NN O O
serotonin NN O O
systems NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Open-label NN O O
reports NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
serotonin2A-dopamine NN O I-INT
D2 NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
interfering NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
mean+/-SD NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
28.1+/-7.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-week NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
subsequently NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
open-label NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
persons NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
categorized NN O O
as NN O O
responders NN O O
( NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
[ NN O O
mean+/-SD NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
2.9+/-1.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
aggression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nervousness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
.03 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O O
, NN O O
measurable NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
open-label NN O O
risperidone NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
responded NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
than NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transient NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
risperidone NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9772038)

Involvement NN O O
of NN O O
cholecystokininA NN O O
receptors NN O O
in NN O O
transient NN O O
lower NN O O
esophageal NN O O
sphincter NN O O
relaxations NN O O
triggered NN O O
by NN O O
gastric NN O O
distension NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Transient NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
sphincter NN O I-OUT
relaxations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TLESRs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
mechanism NN O O
underlying NN O O
gastroesophageal NN O O
reflux NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
loxiglumide NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
cholecystokininA NN O O
( NN O O
CCKA NN O O
) NN O O
-receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
TLESRs NN O O
evoked NN O O
by NN O O
gastric NN O O
distension NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
manometry NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
10-lumen NN O I-INT
sleeve NN O I-INT
assembly NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
loxiglumide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mg/kg/h NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Gastric NN O O
distension NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
inflation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Basal NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LESP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
swallow-induced NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
loxiglumide NN O O
. NN O O

Loxiglumide NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
TLESRs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
from NN O O
11.5 NN O O
( NN O O
5.8-18.3 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
6.0 NN O O
( NN O O
3.3-14.3 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
recording NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
5.5 NN O O
( NN O O
4.25-7.5 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
2.0 NN O O
( NN O O
0.5-6.8 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
common NN O I-OUT
cavities NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
loxiglumide NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
8.0 NN O O
( NN O O
4.0-20.0 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
5.0 NN O O
( NN O O
2.0-7.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

TLESRs NN O I-OUT
represented NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
mechanism NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
loxiglumide NN O O
) NN O O
underlying NN O O
common NN O O
cavities NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
swallow-induced NN O O
relaxation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Loxiglumide NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
TLESRs NN O I-OUT
triggered NN O O
by NN O O
gastric NN O O
distension NN O O
without NN O O
interfering NN O O
with NN O O
swallow-related NN O O
relaxation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
esophageal NN O O
sphincter NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
CCKA NN O O
receptors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reflex NN O O
pathway NN O O
mediating NN O O
TLESRs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9777717)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
highly NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
heat-treated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
rabies NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
either NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
purified NN O O
, NN O O
Vero-cell NN O I-INT
rabies NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
heat-treated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
rabies NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PHT-Erig NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
F NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ab NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
Thailand NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Philippines-two NN O I-PAR
countries NN O O
where NN O O
rabies NN O O
is NN O O
endemic NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
initial NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rabies NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
administration NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
PHT-Erig NN O I-INT
or NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O I-INT
commercially-available NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
rabies NN O I-INT
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Erig NN O I-INT
PMC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
second NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
simulated NN O O
post-exposure NN O O
rabies NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
reference NN O O
cell NN O O
culture NN O O
vaccine NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
Vero-cell NN O I-INT
rabies NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PVRV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O I-INT
Erig NN O I-INT
PMC NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PHT-Erig NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
IU NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
Erig NN O I-INT
PMC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
PHT-Erig NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intramuscular NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
i.m NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
route NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
injected NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
deltoid NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
half NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
buttocks NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O O
for NN O O
rabies NN O O
antibody NN O O
determination NN O O
and NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
ab NN O O
' NN O O
) NN O O
2 NN O O
concentration NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
H NN O O
) NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
products NN O O
were NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
anaphylactic NN O O
reactions NN O O
or NN O O
serum NN O O
sickness NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistical NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

Nonetheless NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
similar NN O O
absorption NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
Erig NN O O
and NN O O
PHT-Erig NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
antibody NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
low NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
15-day NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
titer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
group NN O O
0.027-0.117 NN O O
IU NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Erig NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
0.029 NN O O
to NN O O
0.072 NN O O
IU NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PHT-Erig NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
evolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GMT NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
71 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
40 NN O O
IU NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
Erig NN O O
PMC NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
36 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
PHT-Erig NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
D0 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
five NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
PVRV NN O O
on NN O O
D0 NN O O
, NN O O
D3 NN O O
, NN O O
D7 NN O O
, NN O O
D14 NN O O
and NN O O
D28 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
28-day NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
anti-rabies NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
titration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
on NN O O
D0 NN O O
( NN O O
before NN O O
injection NN O O
) NN O O
D3 NN O O
, NN O O
D7 NN O O
, NN O O
D14 NN O O
and NN O O
D28 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
immediate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
anaphylactic NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
sickness NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O O
the NN O O
28-day NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
GMT NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
equivalent NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
D14 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
anti-rabies NN O O
antibodies NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.5 NN O O
IU NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
WHO-recommended NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
seroconversion NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Erig NN O O
PMC NN O O
and NN O O
PHT-Erig NN O O
were NN O O
indistinguishable NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
definition NN O O
chosen NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
D28 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
GMT NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
33.2 NN O O
IU NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
23.8-46.1 NN O O
IU NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Erig NN O O
PMC/PVRV NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
31.4 NN O O
IU NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
23.4-42.2 NN O O
IU NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PHT-Erig/PVRV NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
adequate NN O O
vaccine-induced NN O O
antibody NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increased NN O O
purity NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
heat-treatment NN O O
step NN O O
introduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
manufacturing NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
PHT-Erig NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
good NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
substantiate NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
new NN O O
generation NN O O
, NN O O
purified NN O O
equine NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
ab NN O O
' NN O O
) NN O O
2 NN O O
preparation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
post-exposure NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
rabies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9777899)

Preventing NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
managing NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
frail NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
community-based NN O O
partnership NN O O
with NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Effective NN O O
new NN O O
strategies NN O O
that NN O O
complement NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
self-management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
frail NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1-year NN O O
, NN O O
senior NN O O
center-based NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
self-management NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
frail NN O O
older NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O O
large NN O O
senior NN O O
center NN O O
located NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
northeast NN O O
Seattle NN O I-PAR
suburb NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
collaboration NN O O
with NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
large NN O O
managed NN O O
care NN O O
organizations NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
201 NN O I-PAR
chronically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
seniors NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
A NN O I-INT
targeted NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
multi-component NN O I-INT
disability NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
self-management NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
led NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
geriatric NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
practitioner NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GNP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Self-reported NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Each NN O O
of NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
met NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
GNP NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
times NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Other NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
battery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalized NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.083 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inpatient NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
year NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
days NN O O
= NN O O
33 NN O O
vs NN O O
116 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.049 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
senior NN O I-OUT
center NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychoactive NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
project NN O O
provides NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
community-based NN O O
collaboration NN O O
with NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
inpatient NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Linking NN O O
organized NN O O
medical NN O O
care NN O O
with NN O O
complementary NN O O
community-based NN O O
interventions NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
direction NN O O
for NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9786491)

Pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-OUT
volunteers NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
update NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9788685)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
of NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
cetirizine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
pseudoephedrine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
cetirizine NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
with NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
pseudoephedrine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PSE NN O O
) NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
perennial NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
house-dust-mite NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HDM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
allergy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
cetirizine/PSE NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
medication NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
related NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
7-h NN O O
challenge NN O O
with NN O O
HDM NN O O
feces NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Vienna NN O O
Challenge NN O O
Chamber NN O O
( NN O O
VCC NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preparation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
second NN O O
challenge NN O O
of NN O O
3-h NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
residual NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
formulation NN O O
after NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
oral NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
cetirizine/PSE NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
both NN O O
challenges NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
airflow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
cetirizine/PSE NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
subjective NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
cetirizine/PSE NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
both NN O O
challenges NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
cetirizine/PSE NN O I-INT
relieved NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O O
objective NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
extent NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9796041)

A NN O O
search NN O O
for NN O O
serologic NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
immunity NN O O
to NN O O
Bordetella NN O O
pertussis NN O O
cough NN O O
illnesses NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
pertussis NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
collected NN O O
sera NN O O
from NN O O
vaccinees NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DTaP NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
DTP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
after NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
and NN O O
fourth NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
comparable NN O O
time NN O O
periods NN O O
in NN O O
DT NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
sera NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
approximately NN O I-PAR
3-month NN O I-PAR
intervals NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
which NN O O
antibody NN O O
kinetic NN O O
curves NN O O
were NN O O
constructed NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
allowed NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
specific NN O O
antibody NN O O
values NN O O
to NN O O
pertussis NN O I-INT
toxin NN O O
( NN O O
PT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
filamentous NN O O
hemagglutinin NN O O
( NN O O
FHA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pertactin NN O O
and NN O O
fimbriae-2 NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
household NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
imputed NN O O
geometric NN O O
mean NN O O
antibody NN O O
values NN O O
to NN O O
PT NN O O
, NN O O
pertactin NN O O
and NN O O
fimbriae-2 NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
household NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
Bordetella NN O O
pertussis NN O O
infection NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.07 NN O O
or NN O O
lower NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
non-cases NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multivariate NN O O
( NN O O
classification NN O O
tree NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
only NN O O
pertactin NN O O
and NN O O
PT NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
protection NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
imputed NN O O
pertactin NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
7 NN O O
EU NN O O
ml-1 NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
18/27 NN O O
) NN O O
chance NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PT NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
the NN O O
pertactin NN O O
value NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
EU NN O O
ml-1 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
PT NN O O
value NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
66 NN O O
EU NN O O
ml-1 NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
non-cases NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
the NN O O
pertactin NN O O
value NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
PT NN O O
value NN O O
was NN O O
< NN O O
66 NN O O
EU NN O O
ml-1 NN O O
the NN O O
predicted NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
being NN O O
a NN O O
case NN O O
was NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
15/49 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Logistic NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
high NN O O
versus NN O O
low NN O O
pertactin NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
illness NN O O
prevention NN O O
following NN O O
household NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
antibody NN O O
to NN O O
pertactin NN O O
, NN O O
PT NN O O
and NN O O
fimbriae-2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
antibody NN O O
to NN O O
FHA NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
protection NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
historical NN O O
data NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
agglutinating NN O O
antibodies NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
protection NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
recent NN O O
serologic NN O O
correlates NN O O
data NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
data NN O O
which NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
multicomponent NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
pertactin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fimbriae NN O I-INT
have NN O O
better NN O O
efficacy NN O O
than NN O O
PT NN O O
or NN O O
PT/FHA NN O O
vaccines NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9801481)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
in NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
low NN O O
solubility NN O O
of NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
faster NN O O
awakening NN O O
from NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
in NN O O
common NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
consistently NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
faster NN O O
discharge NN O O
times NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
postanesthesia NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
length NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
or NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
following NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
intravenous NN O O
induction NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
premedication NN O O
and NN O O
opioids NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
institutional NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
inhalation NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
effect NN O O
during NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
maintenance NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
emergence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
meeting NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
emergence NN O O
or NN O O
discharge NN O O
times NN O O
following NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
or NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
measured NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
emesis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
balanced NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
technique NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
speed NN O O
the NN O O
emergence NN O O
or NN O O
discharge NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9839765)

Concurrent NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
separately NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
, NN O O
following NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O O
conduction NN O O
parameters NN O O
following NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
three-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
donepezil NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
, NN O O
drug-free NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
without NN O O
incident NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
donepezil NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-120 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-infinity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
t1/2 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
when NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetics NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
when NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
conduction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
lead NN O O
II NN O O
ECG NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
subject NN O O
during NN O O
any NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Co-administration NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.25 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
produced NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
co-administration NN O O
produced NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O O
conduction NN O O
parameters NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
telemetry NN O O
monitoring NN O O
following NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9849475)

Ten-year NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
suboptimally NN O I-PAR
debulked NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
176 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
suboptimally NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CP NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
courses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
plus NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
52 NN O O
and NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
non-significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Including NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
second-look NN O O
laparotomy NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
observe NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
11.9 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
non-significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
19.4 NN O O
and NN O O
21.5 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
platinum-resistant NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
platinum-sensitive NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
carboplatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
second-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
platinum NN O O
second-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
were NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
resistant NN O O
and NN O O
sensitive NN O O
tumours NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
survival NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
platinum-sensitive NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
survived NN O O
longer NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
platinum-containing NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
22.8 NN O O
and NN O O
8.5 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
platinum-containing NN O I-INT
and NN O O
platinum-free NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
suboptimally NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
similar NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
equitoxic NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
chosen NN O O
were NN O O
substantially NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
current NN O O
standard NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
suboptimal NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrences NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
platinum-sensitive NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
retreated NN O O
with NN O O
platinum-containing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9919095)

The NN O I-PAR
preparation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
preadmission NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
readiness NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preadmission NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
was NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
support NN O O
by NN O O
giving NN O O
additional NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
individual NN O O
concerns NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
telephone NN O O
intervention NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
became NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
when NN O O
baseline NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
waiting NN O O
time NN O O
were NN O O
entered NN O O
as NN O O
covariates NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
more NN O O
anxious NN O O
group NN O O
rated NN O O
their NN O O
perceived NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
level NN O O
lower NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
actual NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Given NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
barrier NN O O
that NN O O
anxiety NN O O
can NN O O
pose NN O O
for NN O O
patient NN O O
learning NN O O
, NN O O
nurses NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
adapt NN O O
their NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
deal NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
feelings NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
accompany NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O O
process NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9933852)

Erythropoiesis NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
dose-response NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
anemic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Preoperative NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
600 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
r-HuEPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
increases NN O O
erythropoiesis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
erythropoietic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
r-HuEPO NN O I-INT
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
effective NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
anemic NN O I-PAR
sideropenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
hemoglobin NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
/=110 NN O I-PAR
g/l NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
iron NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
600 NN O I-PAR
microg/l NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
400 NN O I-INT
U/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
r-Hu NN O I-INT
EPO NN O I-INT
divided NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
U/kg NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
U/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
r-HuEPO NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
U/kg NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
gluconate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
125 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
rose NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
176.3+/-90.8 NN O O
ml NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
200 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
268.4+/-79.4 NN O O
ml NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
400 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
400 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
22.3+/-2.0 NN O O
g/l NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
200 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
14.1+/-2.7 NN O O
g/l NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
r-HuEPO NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
appears NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
200 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
to NN O O
stimulate NN O O
erythropoiesis NN O O
in NN O O
anemic NN O I-PAR
sideropenic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9951491)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
parallel NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
loteprednol NN O I-INT
etabonate NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
loteprednol NN O I-INT
etabonate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
seasonal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
conjunctivitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
135 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
LE NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
vehicle NN O O
) NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
eyes NN O O
for NN O O
42 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Bulbar NN O I-OUT
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
sign NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
LE NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
bulbar NN O I-OUT
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.0 NN O O
units NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
0-3 NN O O
scale NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
itching NN O O
( NN O O
3.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.0 NN O O
units NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
0-4 NN O O
scale NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
measures NN O O
was NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
and NN O O
-0.4 NN O O
units NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
LE NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Resolution NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
present NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
strongly NN O O
favored NN O O
LE-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
injection NN O O
and NN O O
itching NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
67 NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
68 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
elevation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Loteprednol NN O O
etabonate NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
seasonal NN O O
allergic NN O O
conjunctivitis NN O O
. NN O O

Loteprednol NN O O
etabonate NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O



