-DOCSTART- (10070173)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
Turbuhaler NN O I-INT
with NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
aqua NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Rhinocort NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
Turbuhaler NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
microg/day NN O O
with NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
aqua NN O I-INT
256 NN O O
microg/day 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
rhinitis NN O O
( NN O O
SAR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondarily NN O O
to NN O O
ascertain NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
preferences NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
nasal NN O O
devices NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double- NN O O
dummy NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Private NN O O
practices NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
clinics NN O O
in NN O O
Ontario NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Quebec NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Manitoba NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

POPULATION NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty-four NN O I-PAR
out-patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SAR NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ragweed NN O I-PAR
season NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
volunteered NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
enrolment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
243 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
with NN O O
treatment 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
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Most NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
substantial NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
symptoms NN O O
with NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-nasal NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
epistaxis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Turbuhaler NN O I-INT
was NN O O
easier NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
convenient NN O O
to NN O O
carry NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
less NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
unpleasant NN O O
taste NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
caused NN O O
less NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
aqua NN O O
spray NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
than NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
preferred NN O O
Turbuhaler NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
aqua NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
clinic NN O O
visits NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Once NN O O
daily NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
256 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
aqua NN O I-INT
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
Turbuhaler NN O I-INT
are NN O O
equally NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
SAR NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
preferred NN O O
the NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
formulation NN O O
delivered NN O O
via NN O O
Turbuhaler NN O I-INT
two NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
aqua NN O I-INT
formulation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10390665)

Anti-emetic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
post-operative NN O O
vomiting NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
with NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
vomiting NN O O
after NN O O
tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
adenoidectomy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. 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
study NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4-10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
received NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
or NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
70 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
45 NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
intravenously NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
inhalation NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
standard NN O O
general NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
throughout NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
emesis NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
another NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
0-3 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
and NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.204 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
corresponding NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
21 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
3-24 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
62 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

No NN O O
clinically NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed 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

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
anti-emetic NN O O
than NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10475150)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
octreotide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Somatostatin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pineal NN O O
gland NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
animal NN O O
species NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
regulatory NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
melatonin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
man NN O O
has NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
unequivocally NN O O
shown NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
melatonin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
disease NN O O
state NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
secretion NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injections NN O O
at NN O O
18:00 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
23:00 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Sandostatin NN O I-INT
; NN O O
each NN O O
injection NN O O
50 NN O O
microg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
nights NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
melatonin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Also NN O O
the NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
melatonin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
of NN O O
similar NN O O
magnitude NN O O
at NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
occasions 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-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
nights NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
GH NN O O
AUC NN O O
22.6+/-5.4 NN O O
mU/l NN O O
x NN O O
h NN O O
during NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
126.6+/-21.9 NN O O
mU/l NN O O
x NN O O
h NN O O
during NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
; 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
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
melatonin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
melatonin NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
did NN O O
GH NN O O
secretion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TSH NN O O
AUC NN O O
562+/-136 NN O O
mU/l NN O O
x NN O O
h NN O O
during NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
851+/-185 NN O O
mU/l NN O O
x NN O O
h NN O O
during NN O O
saline 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
thus NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
100 NN O O
microg NN O O
of NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
inhibit NN O O
also NN O O
the NN O O
pinealocytes NN O O
if NN O O
their NN O O
function NN O O
were NN O O
regulated NN O O
by NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Since NN O O
exogenous NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
-- NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
-- NN O O
fails NN O O
to NN O O
influence NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
melatonin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
reasonable NN O O
to NN O O
assume NN O O
that NN O O
endogenous NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
regulator NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O O
secretion NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10578479)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
on NN O O
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
phytoestrogens NN O O
in NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
products NN O O
may NN O O
impart NN O O
hormonal NN O O
effects NN O O
that NN O O
protect NN O O
women NN O O
against NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Limited NN O O
research NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
products NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
isoflavonoid NN O O
phytoestrogens NN O O
affects NN O O
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
whether NN O O
phytoestrogens NN O O
in NN O O
soy NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
menstrual NN O O
function NN O O
or NN O O
serum NN O O
sex NN O O
hormones NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
common NN O O
hormone NN O O
therapies NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
oral NN O O
contraceptives NN O O
( NN O O
OC NN O O
) 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
soy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
consumed NN O O
their NN O O
normal NN O O
diet NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycles NN O O
and NN O O
added NN O O
a NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
20 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
protein NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
isoflavones NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
usual NN O O
diet NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
two NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
estrone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone-binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dehydroepiandrosterone NN O I-OUT
sulfate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
feeding NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-OC NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
menstrual NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
estrogen NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
2-hydroxyestrone NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
16 NN O I-OUT
alpha-hydroxyestrone NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
soy NN O O
feeding NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-OC NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Levels NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
estrogen NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
non-OC NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
consumption 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
menstrual NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormones NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
estrogen NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
non-OC NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10589810)

Clinical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
root NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
using NN O O
conventional NN O O
steel NN O O
or NN O O
non-tooth NN O O
substance NN O O
removing NN O O
plastic NN O O
curettes NN O O
during NN O O
supportive NN O O
periodontal NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
SPT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
root NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
accepted NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
cause-related NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
periodontal NN O O
diseases NN O O
, NN O O
repeated NN O O
scaling NN O O
and NN O O
root NN O O
planing NN O O
may NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
substantive NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
tooth NN O O
substance NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
effort NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
these NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
non-root NN O O
substance NN O O
removing NN O O
curettes NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
such NN O O
plastic NN O O
curettes NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
periodontal NN O O
infection NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
. 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
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
root NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
using NN O O
plastic NN O I-INT
curettes NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Universal NN O O
Perio NN O O
Soft NN O O
Scaler NN O O
, NN O O
Hawe-Neos NN O O
Dental NN O O
, NN O O
Bioggio NN O O
, NN O O
TI NN O O
, NN O O
Switzerland NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
steel NN O I-INT
curettes NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
periodontal NN O O
conditions NN O O
during NN O O
supportive NN O O
periodontal NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

40 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
following NN O O
active NN O O
peridontal NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

20 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
steel NN O I-INT
curettes NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
supportive NN O I-PAR
periodontal NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
visit NN O O
( NN O O
SPT NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
using NN O O
plastic NN O I-INT
curettes NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
SPT NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BOP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
pocket NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
3-6 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
regular NN O O
SPT NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
BOP NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
following NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed 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
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
modalities NN O O
regarding NN O O
BOP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
observation NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
BOP NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
17-42 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
by NN O O
about NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
BOP NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
: NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
BOP NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
: NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
non-root NN O I-INT
substance NN O I-INT
removing NN O I-INT
curettes NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
valuable NN O O
instruments NN O O
for NN O O
periodontally NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
maintenance NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
minimizing NN O O
trauma NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
hard NN O O
structures NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10752495)

Prediction NN O O
of NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
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 O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
formulae NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
nomogram NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
estimation NN O O
of NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of 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 O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
creatinine NN O O
clearance NN O O
( NN O O
Clcr NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
24-h NN O O
urine NN O O
collection NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
unreliable NN O O
and NN O O
time-consuming NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
equations NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
nomogram NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prediction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Clcr NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Scr NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.83-0.94 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
RA NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.51-0.69 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
methods NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
overestimate NN O O
Clcr NN O O
in NN O O
RA NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
RA NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
simple NN O O
formula NN O O
published NN O O
by NN O O
Cockcroft NN O O
[ NN O O
Clcr NN O O
= NN O O
( NN O O
( NN O O
140 NN O O
- NN O O
age NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
/ NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
x NN O O
Scr NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
x NN O O
0.85 NN O O
for NN O O
females NN O O
] NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
measured NN O O
Clcr NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
RA NN O O
the NN O O
Cockroft NN O O
formula NN O O
can NN O O
reliably NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O I-OUT
Clcr NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
Scr NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10763172)

[ NN O O
Improving NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
nose NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
combined NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
xylometazoline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
dexpanthenol NN O I-INT
] NN O O
. NN O O

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
the NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
application-form NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
Xylometazoline NN O I-INT
with NN O O
Dexpanthenol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Nasic NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Xylometazoline NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
verum NN O O
controlled NN O O
parallel-group-comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nasal-spray NN O O
. NN O O

61 NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
Rhinitis NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
verum NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
each NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
nasal-breathing-resistance NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
target-parameter NN O O
. NN O O

Confirmatory NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-U NN O O
two-sided NN O O
at NN O O
alpha NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
The NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
Xylometazoline-Dexpanthenol NN O I-INT
nasal-spray NN O O
versus NN O O
Xylometazoline NN O I-INT
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
proven NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
target-parameter NN O O
as NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinically NN O O
proven NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
emphasized NN O O
by NN O O
good NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
easy NN O O
handling NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nasal-spray NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Distinct NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
operations NN O I-PAR
underlines NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
Xylometazoline-Dexpanthenol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
enlargement NN O O
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
effective NN O O
medicinal NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
Xylometazoline NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10764172)

Intrathecal NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
suppresses NN O O
NK NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
intrathecal NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
IT0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
intrathecal NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
IT0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
Group NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remaining NN O O
ten NN O O
patients NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
inhalation NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
NK NN O O
cell NN O O
activity NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
chromium NN O O
release NN O O
assay NN O O
with NN O O
K562 NN O O
cells NN O O
as NN O O
targets NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O O
catecholamines NN O O
and NN O O
cortisol NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
Group NN O O
IT0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
NK NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
23.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
45.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
recovered NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Groups NN O O
IT0.1 NN O O
, NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
NK NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
adrenaline NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
two NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
IT0.5 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
long-lasting NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intrathecal NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
suppress NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
following NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10912743)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
treated NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Collaborative NN O O
Group NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Primary NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Project NN O O
( NN O O
PPP NN O O
) NN O O
-- NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Nonsteroidal NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
drugs NN O O
may NN O O
affect 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
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
are NN O O
scanty 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
chronic NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensives NN O O
on NN O O
chronic NN O O
, NN O O
stable NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
therapy 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
framework NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Primary NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Project NN O O
( NN O O
PPP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
factorial NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
preventive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Fifteen NN O I-PAR
Italian NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
142 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
76 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
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
5.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
antihypertensive NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
71 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
71 NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
automatic NN O O
sphygmomanometer NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
24-h NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
, 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
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
treatment 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
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
untreated NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Ambulatory NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
: NN O O
deltaSBP NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
mmHg 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
from NN O O
-1.9 NN O O
to NN O O
+2.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
deltaDBP NN O O
-1.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
from NN O O
-2.5 NN O O
to NN O O
+0.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pattern NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
interaction NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
used NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
drug NN O O
classes NN O O
( NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
and NN O O
calcium NN O O
antagonists NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
relatively NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
our NN O O
results NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
exclude NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
control NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensives NN O O
under NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10934569)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental 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
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8 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
NOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
averaged NN O O
24.52 NN O O
hours NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
gradually NN O O
reducing NN O O
hours NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
NOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
received NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
appeared NN O O
similar NN O O
at NN O O
intake NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
outperformed NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
intelligence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual-spatial NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
academics NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
though NN O O
not NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
NOS NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
gained NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10940525)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
against NN O O
fleas NN O O
and NN O O
heartworms NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
veterinary NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
America NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
masked NN O O
field NN O O
studies NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess 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
selamectin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
flea NN O O
infestations NN O O
on NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
heartworm NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
observations NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
flea NN O I-PAR
allergy NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
studies NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
topically NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
month NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
unit NN O O
doses NN O O
providing NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
6mgkg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Dogs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
naturally NN O I-PAR
occurring NN O I-PAR
flea NN O I-PAR
infestations NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
some NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FAD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
220 NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
189 NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
a NN O O
positive-control NN O O
product NN O O
( NN O O
dogs NN O O
: NN O O
fenthion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n=81 NN O O
; NN O O
cats NN O O
: NN O O
pyrethrins NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n=66 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Selamectin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
. NN O O

Day NN O O
0 NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
animal NN O O
first NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Flea NN O O
burdens NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
flea NN O I-OUT
comb NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FAD NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
days NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
flea NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
selamectin-treated NN O I-INT
dogs NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
92.1 NN O O
, NN O O
99.0 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
99.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
flea NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
fenthion-treated NN O O
dogs NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
81.5 NN O O
, NN O O
86.8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
86.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
counts NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
flea NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
selamectin-treated NN O O
cats NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
92.5 NN O O
, NN O O
98.3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
99.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
flea NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pyrethrin-treated NN O O
cats NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
66.4 NN O O
, NN O O
73.9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
81.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
counts NN O O
. NN O O

Selamectin NN O I-INT
also NN O O
was NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
alleviating NN O O
signs NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FAD NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
397 NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
heartworm NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
heartworm-endemic NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
USA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=298 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Selamectin NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
heartworm NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
dogs NN O O
testing NN O O
negative NN O O
for NN O O
microfilariae NN O O
and NN O O
adult NN O O
heartworm NN O O
antigen NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
180 NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
. NN O O

Selamectin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
673 NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
347 NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
having NN O O
an NN O O
age NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
to NN O O
19 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
3954 NN O O
doses NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
purebred NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
crossbred NN O I-PAR
Collies NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Bearded NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Border NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
unspecified NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
flea NN O O
infestations NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
environment NN O O
or NN O O
of NN O O
in-contact NN O O
animals NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
was NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
alleviating NN O O
signs NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
FAD NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Selamectin NN O I-INT
also NN O O
was NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
canine NN O O
heartworms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
topical NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11099086)

Oral NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
empiric NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
diarrhea NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Acute NN O O
invasive NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
potentially NN O O
serious NN O O
condition NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
resistance NN O O
of NN O O
enteric NN O O
pathogens NN O O
to NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
oral NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
, NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
has NN O O
become NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
invasive NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
requiring NN O O
an NN O O
emergency NN O O
visit NN O O
in NN O O
southern NN O O
Israel NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
inconvenience NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
parenteral NN O O
regimen NN O O
created NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O O
pediatric NN O O
formulations NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
invasive NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate 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
a NN O O
suspension NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
ciprofloxacin 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
invasive NN O I-PAR
diarrhea NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
From NN O O
July NN O O
1996 NN O O
through NN O O
December NN O O
1997 NN O O
, NN O O
201 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
diarrhea NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
Emergency NN O I-PAR
Room NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
suspension NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
+ NN O O
im NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
95 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
im NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
+ NN O O
placebo NN O O
suspension NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
106 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

Stool NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Shigella NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Salmonella NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Campylobacter NN O I-OUT
spp NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diarrheagenic NN O I-OUT
Escherichia NN O I-OUT
coli NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
on NN O O
Days NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
Days NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
isolated NN O O
127 NN O O
pathogens NN O O
from NN O O
121 NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
: NN O O
73 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
Shigella NN O O
; NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
Salmonella NN O O
; NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
E. NN O O
coli NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
Campylobacter NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
bacteriologic NN O O
eradication NN O O
on NN O O
Day NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
was NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
Shigella NN O O
, NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
Salmonella NN O O
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
Campylobacter NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O O
and NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
values NN O O
determined NN O O
on NN O O
Day NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
MIC50 NN O O
and NN O O
MIC90 NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Shigella NN O O
and NN O O
Salmonella NN O O
spp NN O O
. NN O O

isolated NN O O
. NN O O

Possible NN O O
drug-related NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
4.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
. NN O O

Joint NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
normal NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Oral NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
as NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
empiric NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
invasive NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
in NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
room NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11229858)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
antipyretic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
antipyretics NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
naproxen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
of NN O O
metamizol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
peaks NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Antipyretic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
cautiously NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
malaria NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1131298)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
essential NN O I-INT
oils NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
garlic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
onion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
alimentary NN O O
hyperlipemia NN O O
. NN O O

SUMMARY NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
garlic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
onion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
alimentary NN O O
hyperlipemia NN O O
, NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
feeding NN O O
100 NN O O
g NN O O
butter NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
freshly NN O O
extracted NN O O
juice NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
garlic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
onion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
equivalent NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
ether-extracted NN O O
essential NN O I-INT
oils NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
randomly NN O O
on NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
days NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
one-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Garlic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
onion NN O I-INT
have NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
protective NN O O
action NN O O
against NN O O
fat-induced NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
essential NN O O
oil NN O O
fraction NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
contains NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
taste NN O O
and NN O O
odour NN O O
, NN O O
exactly NN O O
duplicated NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
whole NN O O
garlic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
onion NN O I-INT
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
principle NN O O
of NN O O
garlic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
onion NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
essential NN O O
oil NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
chemically NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
sulphur-containing NN O O
compounds NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
allyl NN O O
propyl NN O O
disulphide NN O O
and NN O O
diallyl NN O O
disulphide NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11317090)

Economic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aquatic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
for NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
estimate NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Arthritis NN O O
Foundation NN O O
aquatic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
from NN O O
the NN O O
societal NN O O
perspective NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
20-week NN O O
aquatic NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
quality-adjusted NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QALY NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
gained NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
using NN O O
trial NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Sample NN O O
size NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
reject NN O O
the NN O O
null NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
cost/QALY NN O I-OUT
gained NN O O
would NN O O
not NN O O
exceed NN O O
$ NN O O
50,000 NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Recruited NN O O
249 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Washington NN O I-PAR
State NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
doctor-confirmed NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
aquatic NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Well-Being NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QWB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Current NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Desirability NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CHDR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
economic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
supplemented NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
arthritis-specific NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HAQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
Center NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Epidemiologic NN O I-OUT
Studies-Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CES-D NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Perceived NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PQOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
postclass NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
results NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
life NN O O
expectancy NN O O
tables NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
QALYs NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
facilities NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
from NN O O
diaries/questionnaires NN O O
and NN O O
Medicare NN O I-OUT
reimbursement NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O

Nonparametric NN O O
bootstrap NN O O
sampling NN O O
of NN O O
costs/QALY NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
established NN O O
the NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
estimates NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Aquatic NN O I-INT
exercisers NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
equal NN O O
( NN O O
QWB NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
or NN O O
better NN O O
( NN O O
CHDR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HAQ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PQOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Outcomes NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
regular NN O O
class NN O O
attendance NN O O
. NN O O

Costs/QALY NN O I-OUT
gained NN O O
discounted NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
$ NN O O
205,186 NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
QWB NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
$ NN O O
32,643 NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
CHRD NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Aquatic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
exceeded NN O O
$ NN O O
50,000 NN O O
per NN O O
QALY NN O I-OUT
gained NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
community-weighted NN O O
outcome NN O O
but NN O O
fell NN O O
below NN O O
this NN O O
arbitrary NN O O
budget NN O O
constraint NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
participant-weighted NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

Confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
around NN O O
these NN O O
ratios NN O O
suggested NN O O
wide NN O O
variability NN O O
of NN O O
cost NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
aquatic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11381289)

Why NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Heart NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
( NN O O
HOPE NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
so NN O O
astounding NN O O
? NN O O
The NN O O
Heart NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
( NN O O
HOPE NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
important NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
ramipril NN O I-INT
- NN O O
an 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
- 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
for NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ramipril NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
arrest NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes-related NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
itself NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
were NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
benefits NN O O
were NN O O
shown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
were NN O O
likely NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
just NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11401641)

Additive NN O O
IOP-reducing NN O I-OUT
effect NN O O
of NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
insufficiently NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
timolol NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on 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
of NN O O
switching NN O O
from NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
or NN O O
adding NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
to NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
where NN O I-PAR
IOP NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
adequately NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
timolol NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
6-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

53 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
capsular NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
IOP NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
run-in 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
on NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/ml NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised 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

One NN O O
group NN O O
continued NN O O
on NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
one NN O O
switched NN O O
from NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
, NN O O
50 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
9 NN O O
AM NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
24.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 NN O O
and NN O O
23.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
continuing NN O O
on NN O O
timolol NN O O
, NN O O
26.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
and NN O O
19.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
switching NN O O
to NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
23.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
and NN O O
17.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Adding NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
to NN O O
timolol NN O O
reduced NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
5.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 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
and NN O O
switching NN O O
from NN O O
timolol NN O O
to NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
reduced NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
5.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 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
which NN O O
caused NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
about NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
was NN O O
additive NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
timolol NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
switching NN O O
from NN O O
timolol NN O O
to NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
switch NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11454878)

Recurrent NN O O
epithelial NN O O
ovarian NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
pegylated NN O I-INT
liposomal NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare 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
pegylated NN O I-INT
liposomal NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
epithelial NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
recurred NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
n't NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
measurable NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
assessable 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
PLD NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
1-hour NN O O
infusion NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/d NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
prospectively NN O O
for NN O O
platinum NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
bulky 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
474 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
( NN O O
239 NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
235 NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
comprised NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.095 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
were NN O O
19.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
17.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.390 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
60 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
56.7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Data NN O O
analyzed NN O O
in NN O O
platinum-sensitive NN O O
patients NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
for NN O O
progression-free NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.037 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
medians NN O O
of NN O O
28.9 NN O O
for NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
23.3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
. NN O O

For NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
108 NN O O
weeks NN O O
versus NN O O
71.1 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
platinum-refractory NN O O
subgroup NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
nonstatistically NN O O
significant NN O O
survival NN O O
trend NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.455 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Severe NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
dosage NN O O
modification NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
or NN O O
blood NN O O
product NN O O
utilization NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
favorable NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
convenient NN O O
dosing NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11495215)

Oral NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
use NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nonsmokers NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
who NN O O
smoke NN O O
and NN O O
take 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
have NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
exact NN O O
mechanismsfor NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiovascular NN O O
reactivity NN O O
to NN O O
psychological NN O O
stress NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
one NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
enhanced NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
examining NN O O
whether NN O O
OC NN O O
users NN O O
who NN O O
smoke NN O O
have NN O O
greater NN O O
reactivity NN O O
have NN O O
produced NN O O
mixed 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
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
acute NN O O
nicotine NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
OC NN O O
use NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
half NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
OCs NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Approximately NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
thirds NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
tested NN O O
after NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
12-hr NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
or NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
gum NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
nonsmokers NN O I-PAR
. 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
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
videotaped NN O O
speech NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
nonusers NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
status NN O O
or NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
reactivity NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
users NN O O
, NN O O
nonsmokers NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
acute NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
gum NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
use NN O O
among NN O O
nonsmoking NN O O
women NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11642083)

[ NN O O
Neoton NN O I-INT
and NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
] NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
neoton NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricle NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
TLT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
106 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Q-MI NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

47 NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
without NN O O
TLT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
neoton NN O I-INT
, NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
TLT NN O I-INT
with NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
preparations NN O O
, NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
preparations NN O I-INT
and NN O O
neoton NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, 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
and NN O O
28 NN O O
; NN O O
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
at NN O O
Holter NN O O
monitoring NN O O
in NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
MI NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
TLT NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
arrest NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
dilation NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
given NN O O
neoton NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
MI NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
ventricle NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
MI NN O O
onset NN O O
. NN O O

Antiarrhythmic NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
neoton NN O I-INT
manifested NN O O
on NN O O
MI NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Neoton NN O I-INT
given NN O O
to NN O O
MI NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
TLT NN O O
prevents NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
establishment NN O O
of NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
unfavourable NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11737955)

Antioxidant NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
60-year-old NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
antipyrine NN O I-INT
hydroxylates NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SE NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SE NN O I-PAR
1 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
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
supplementation NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
dl-alpha-tocopheryl NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
week NN O O
supplementation NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
cycled NN O O
for NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
at NN O O
submaximal NN O O
intensity NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
maximal NN O O
workload NN O O
capacity NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Antipyrine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

Antipyrine NN O O
reacts NN O O
quickly NN O O
with NN O O
hydroxyl NN O O
radicals NN O O
to NN O O
form NN O O
para- NN O O
and NN O O
ortho-hydroxyantipyrine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
latter NN O O
metabolite NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
formed NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
mono-oxygenase NN O O
pathway NN O O
of NN O O
cytochrome NN O O
P450 NN O O
. NN O O

Daily NN O O
supplementation NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
alpha-tocopherol NN O O
and NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supplemented NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
Delta NN O O
14.4 NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
3.2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.4 NN O O
( NN O O
se NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
micromol/l NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 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

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
, NN O O
within NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ratios NN O O
para- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ortho-hydroxyantipyrine NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
antipyrine NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
supplementation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
thiobarbituric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
reactive NN O I-OUT
substances NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
60-year-old NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
antioxidant NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
radical NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antipyrine NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11750293)

The NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
in NN O O
recent NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND 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
course NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recently NN O I-PAR
diagnosed 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
and NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty-two 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
recently NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
process NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
six NN O O
assessment NN O O
occasions NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
21-month NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
constituted NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
outpatient NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
became NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
depressed NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
consistently NN O O
predict NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
were NN O O
initial NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arthritis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
RA NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
relative NN O O
independence NN O O
from NN O O
physical NN O O
findings NN O O
. 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
document NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
illness NN O O
perceptions NN O O
in NN O O
recent NN O O
onset NN O O
RA NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11829043)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
progressive NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
stoma NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
stoma NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and 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
QoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
three NN O O
occasions NN O O
; NN O O
namely NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
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
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
20-min NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
audiotaped NN O O
instructions NN O O
on NN O O
progressive NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PMRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
home NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Assessment NN O O
instructions NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Chinese NN O I-OUT
State-Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C-STAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Colostomy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QoL-Colostomy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Hong NN O I-OUT
Kong NN O I-OUT
Chinese NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Organisation NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WHOQoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
C-STAI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
4.66 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
the NN O O
WHOQoL NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
4.74 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
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
domains NN O O
of NN O O
WHOQoL NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
health/independence NN O O
and NN O O
general NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
better NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
QoL-Colostomy NN O I-OUT
, 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
control NN O O
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups 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
use NN O O
of NN O O
PMRT NN O I-INT
could NN O O
enhance NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
state NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
stoma NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11891832)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
weakness NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
inclusion NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
myositis NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
20mg NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
oral NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
could NN O O
slow NN O O
down NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
myositis NN O I-PAR
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
over NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
quantitative NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
study NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
-0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
-3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
= NN O O
-2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
+9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
difference 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
differences NN O O
in NN O O
manual NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
own NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
slow NN O O
down NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
weakness NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
decreased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12139812)

[ NN O O
Limbal NN O I-INT
epithelial NN O I-INT
autograft NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pterygium NN O I-PAR
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
limbal NN O I-INT
epithelial NN O I-INT
autograft NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pterygium NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pterygium NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
paired-eye NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
208 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
229 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
pterygium NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
they 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
excision NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pterygium NN O I-INT
with NN O O
limbal NN O I-INT
epithelial NN O I-INT
autograft NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O O
A NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
106 NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
124 NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
pterygium NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
( NN O O
B NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
102 NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
105 NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
recovery NN O O
were NN O O
corneal NN O O
transparency NN O O
with NN O O
stable NN O O
epithelial NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
no NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pterygium-like NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
post-operative NN O O
follow-up NN O O
periods NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
18 NN O O
approximately NN O O
28 NN O O
( NN O O
22.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.9 NN O O
) NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
lost NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
2 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
A NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
41 NN O O
of NN O O
96 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
42.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
B NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
recurred NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
being NN O O
very 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
To NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
source NN O O
, NN O O
limbal NN O I-INT
epithelial NN O I-INT
autograft NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
injured NN O O
limb NN O O
us NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
reasonable NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pterygium NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12477021)

Clinical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Reichert NN O I-INT
AT550 NN O I-INT
: NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
non-contact NN O O
tonometer 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
assess NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intra-ocular NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
IOP NN O O
) NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
non-contact NN O O
tonometer NN O O
( NN O O
NCT NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
Reichert NN O I-INT
AT550 NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
against NN O O
those NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Reichert NN O I-INT
Xpert NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Goldmann NN O I-INT
applanation NN O I-INT
tonometer NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Perkins NN O I-INT
tonometer NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Thirty-five NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
tonometers NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
non-contact NN O O
tonometry NN O O
performed NN O O
first NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
measurement NN O O
devices NN O O
had NN O O
its NN O O
own NN O O
trained NN O O
clinical NN O O
observer NN O O
. NN O O

Plots NN O O
of NN O O
differences NN O O
of NN O O
IOP NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
pair NN O O
of NN O O
instruments NN O O
were NN O O
obtained 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
when NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
AT550 NN O I-INT
NCT NN O I-INT
with NN O O
contact NN O O
applanation NN O O
tonometry NN O O
( NN O O
AT 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
displaying NN O O
the NN O O
closest NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
agreement NN O O
( NN O O
as NN O O
represented NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
narrowest NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Goldmann NN O I-INT
tonometer NN O I-INT
( NN O O
limits NN O O
of NN O O
agreement NN O O
, NN O O
0.12+/-2.17 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
readings NN O O
of NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
AT550 NN O I-INT
NCT NN O I-INT
are NN O O
clinically NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
Goldmann NN O I-INT
tonometry NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O O
with NN O O
IOP NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12576806)

Is NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
duration NN O O
sufficient NN O O
for NN O O
stenting NN O I-INT
in NN O O
endopyelotomy NN O O
? NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Internal NN O I-INT
stenting NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
integral NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
endopyelotomy NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O O
show NN O O
good NN O O
healing NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
ureterotomy NN O O
. NN O O

Inherent NN O O
stent NN O O
related NN O O
problems NN O O
warrant NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
possible NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
stenting NN O O
without NN O O
compromising NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
endopyelotomy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stenting NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
endopyelotomy 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
57 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
ureteropelvic NN O I-PAR
junction NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
7/14Fr NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
endopyelotomy NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
symptom NN O O
based NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
stent NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O

Followup NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
with NN O O
diuretic NN O O
scanning NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
yearly NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thereafter NN O O
with NN O O
diuretic NN O O
renography NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
26 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ipsilateral NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
followup NN O O
was NN O O
22.3 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
21.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
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

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
24 NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
92.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
90.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
drainage NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Stent NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
but NN O O
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
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
38.1 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

Of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
preferred NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
stenting NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Two NN O O
weeks NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
sufficient NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
allow NN O O
functional NN O O
restoration NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
ureteropelvic NN O O
junction NN O O
after NN O O
endopyelotomy NN O O
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
stent NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12586799)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
radiosensitive NN O O
and NN O O
chemosensitive NN O O
tumor NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CCRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
284 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
1992 NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Joint NN O I-PAR
Committee NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
M0 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
dosage NN O O
and NN O O
fractionation NN O O
of NN O O
RT NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
investigational NN O O
arm NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/d NN O O
plus NN O O
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/d NN O O
by NN O O
96-hour NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
65 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
26.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
of NN O O
141 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
46.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
66 NN O O
of NN O O
143 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CCRT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
RT-alone NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
72.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CCRT NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
and NN O O
54.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
RT-only NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.0022 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
71.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CCRT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
53.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
RT-only NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.0012 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CCRT NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
emesis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
good NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
cycle NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
refused NN O O
by NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
delayed NN O O
for NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
treatment-related NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
CCRT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
endemic NN O O
areas NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12595499)

Development NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
HOPE NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
renal NN O O
disease NN O O
tends NN O O
to NN O O
progress NN O O
from NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
to NN O O
renal NN O O
insufficiency NN O O
. NN O O

Little NN O O
evidence NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
nondiabetic NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
analyzed NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
over NN O O
4.5 NN O O
yr NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HOPE NN O O
( NN O O
Heart NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
compared NN O O
ramipril NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
9297 NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
3577 NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O O
and NN O O
1956 NN O O
with NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
report NN O O
is NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
7674 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
albuminuria NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Inclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
known NN O O
vascular NN O O
disease NN O O
or NN O O
diabetes NN O O
plus NN O O
one NN O O
other NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
, NN O O
exclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
included NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
or NN O O
known NN O O
impaired NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
dipstick-positive NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
1+ NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
creatinine NN O O
> NN O O
2.3 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
( NN O O
200 NN O O
microM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O O
predicted NN O O
subsequent NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
participants NN O O
overall NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
17.5 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
12.6 NN O O
to NN O O
24.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
participants NN O O
without NN O O
diabetes NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
16.7 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
8.6 NN O O
to NN O O
32.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
18.2 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
12.4 NN O O
to NN O O
26.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Any NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
albuminuria NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
new NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O O
or NN O O
new NN O O
clinical NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
1859 NN O O
participants NN O O
; NN O O
1542 NN O O
developed NN O O
new NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
317 NN O O
participants NN O O
developed NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Ramipril NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
0.87 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.78 NN O O
to NN O O
0.97 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0146 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

People NN O O
without NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
progressive NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
albuminuria NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Microalbuminuria NN O O
itself NN O O
predicts NN O O
clinical NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
in NN O O
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Ramipril NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
or NN O O
delays NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
albuminuria NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12709693)

Conscious NN O O
analgesia/sedation NN O O
with NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
total NN O O
intravenous NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
colonoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
, NN O O
analgesia/sedation NN O O
with NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
by NN O O
intravenous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
. 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
trial NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
conscious NN O O
analgesia/sedation NN O O
( NN O O
Sedation NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
total NN O O
intravenous NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
( NN O O
TIVA NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Analgesia/sedation NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.20 NN O O
to NN O O
0.25 NN O O
microg/kg/min NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
titrated NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

TIVA NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
intravenous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
dosage NN O O
titrated NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiorespiratory NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
bispectral NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
and NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
analgesia NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
Numerical NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
return NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Aldrete NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
Modified NN O I-OUT
Post NN O I-OUT
Anesthesia NN O I-OUT
Discharge NN O I-OUT
Scoring NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MPADS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
demographic NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
initial NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
colonoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TIVA NN O O
group NN O O
found NN O O
the NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
painless NN O O
( NN O O
NRS NN O O
score NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
Sedation NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.4 NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
Sedation NN O O
and NN O O
TIVA NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
MPADS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reached NN O O
: NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
-6.9 NN O O
( NN O O
4.0 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
25.7 NN O O
( NN O O
8.4 NN O O
) NN O O
minutes 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
the NN O O
TIVA NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
were 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Combined NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
provides NN O O
sufficient NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
minor NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
allows NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
discharged NN O O
approximately NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1286547)

Reduced NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
long-term NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dihydropyridine NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
: 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
study NN O O
with NN O O
nitrendipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
borderline NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IDDM-type NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
IDDM NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
nitrendipine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Nitrendipine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Stimulated NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
standardized NN O O
, NN O O
non NN O O
exhausting NN O O
exercise NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
standard NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
collagen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ADP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
collagen NN O O
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
and NN O O
1.0 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
mM NN O O
arachidonic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
AA NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
resting NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
1.0 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
collagen NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo 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

In NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
PF4 NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lowered NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Whole NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
collagen NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
nitrendipine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
ADP NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
microM NN O O
) NN O O
induced NN O O
aggregation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
nitrendipine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
platelet NN O O
rich NN O O
plasma NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
long-term NN O O
nitrendipine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
inhibit NN O O
collagen NN O I-OUT
dependent NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12960652)

Gastric NN O O
dysrhythmia NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
measured NN O O
by NN O O
epigastric NN O O
impedance NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Gastrointestinal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
myoelectrical NN O O
dysrhythmia NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
electrical NN O O
activity NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
myoelectrical NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
dysrhythmia NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
electrogastrography NN O O
using NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
electrodes NN O O
. NN O O

Epigastric NN O I-INT
impedance NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
method NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O O
phasic NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
present NN O O
no NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
dysrhythmia NN O O
, NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
epigastric NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
presented NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
purpose 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
gastric NN O O
rhythms NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
impedance NN O O
gastrography NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
infants NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
0-2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
0-2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
suffered NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
partial NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
necrotizing NN O I-PAR
enterocolitis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pyloric NN O I-PAR
stenosis.All NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
fasting NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
studied NN O O
during NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
state NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
when NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
pathologic NN O O
result NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
persistent NN O O
phasic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
19 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
phasic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Short-term NN O O
phasic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
infants NN O O
( NN O O
32.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Using NN O O
epigastric NN O I-INT
impedance NN O I-INT
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
infants NN O O
with NN O O
partial NN O O
or NN O O
total NN O O
intestinal NN O O
obstruction NN O O
had NN O O
gastric NN O O
phasic NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
origin NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
phasic NN O O
activity NN O O
patterns NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
they NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
electrical NN O O
control NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1459268)

Prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
short NN O O
and NN O O
ultrashort NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
fertilization NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
ultrashort NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GnRH-a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ovulation NN O O
induction NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
vitro NN O I-PAR
fertilization NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
program NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
short NN O O
and NN O O
ultrashort NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
GnRH-a NN O I-INT
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Aberdeen NN O O
Assisted NN O O
Reproduction NN O O
Unit NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
luteinizing NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
surges NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fertilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
ultrashort NN O O
regimen NN O O
produces NN O O
results NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
regimen NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
always NN O O
prevent NN O O
an NN O O
LH NN O I-OUT
surge NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
ultrashort NN O O
regimen NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14679127)

Long-term NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
epithelial NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
have NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
randomised NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
multicentre NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
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
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bidimensionally NN O I-PAR
measurable NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/day NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
175 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/day NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
3-h NN O O
infusion NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
alternate NN O O
therapy NN O O
at NN O O
third NN O O
line NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
European NN O I-OUT
Organisation NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Research NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Cancer NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EORTC NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-C30 NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
eight NN O O
symptoms NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
course NN O O
( NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anorexia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insomnia NN O I-OUT
) 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
226 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluable NN O O
for NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were 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
as NN O O
were NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC NN O O
QOL-30 NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
18.9 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
92.6+ NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
censored NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
14.7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
137.3+ NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
12.3 NN O O
% NN O O
censored NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.076 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
post-randomisation NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
63.0 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
238.4+ NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
20.5 NN O O
% NN O O
censored NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
53.0 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
226.3+ NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
12.3 NN O O
% NN O O
censored NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.44 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Topotecan NN O I-INT
continues NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
with NN O O
manageable NN O O
and NN O O
non-cumulative NN O O
haematological NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Non-haematological NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
mild NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
long-term NN O O
survival NN O O
rate NN O O
indicates NN O O
substantial NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
topotecan NN O I-INT
at NN O O
relapse NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14739125)

Raising NN O O
high-density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
through NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
cholesteryl NN O O
ester NN O O
transfer NN O O
protein NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
multidose NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
torcetrapib NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
potent NN O O
cholesteryl NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
transfer NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CETP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
torcetrapib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CP-529,414 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
raise NN O O
high-density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
( NN O O
HDL-C NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
initial NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
multidose NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Five NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=2 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
torcetrapib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=6 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Torcetrapib NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
correlation NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
inhibition NN O O
( NN O O
EC50=43 NN O O
nM NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
expected NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
potency NN O O
( NN O O
IC50 NN O O
approximately NN O O
50 NN O O
nM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
CETP NN O O
mass NN O O
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
proposed NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

CETP NN O O
inhibition NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
escalating NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
elevations NN O O
of NN O O
HDL-C NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
nonHDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
lowering NN O O
of NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
A-I NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
elevated NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
apoB NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Cholesteryl NN O I-OUT
ester NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonHDL NN O O
plasma NN O O
fraction NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
contrasting NN O O
changes NN O O
occurring NN O O
in NN O O
HDL NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
CETP NN O O
inhibition NN O O
resemble NN O O
those NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
partial NN O O
CETP NN O O
deficiency NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
work NN O O
serves NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
prelude NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
HDL NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
dyslipidemia NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
CETP NN O O
in NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14763035)

A NN O O
selective NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
Valsartan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
produced NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
stiffness NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ARB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
would NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
regressive NN O O
effect NN O O
on 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
in NN O O
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
( NN O I-PAR
CAPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
CAPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
LVH NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LVMi NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
g/m2 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
LVMi NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
137 NN O I-PAR
g/m2 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
ARB NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
target 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
was NN O O
140/90 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
or NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
measured 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
study NN O O
: NN O O
aortic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
large-artery NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
reflections NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
augmentation NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
application NN O I-OUT
tonometry NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
echocardiography NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Periodically NN O O
recorded NN O O
were NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mercury NN O I-OUT
sphygmomanometer NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
electrolytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Two-way NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
for NN O O
repeated NN O O
measurements NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
both NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ARB NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
LVMi NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ARB NN O I-INT
( NN O O
to NN O O
121 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
from NN O O
145 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
to NN O O
137 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
from NN O O
152 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 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
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
LVMi NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
PWV NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
AI NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
CAPD NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
LVH NN O O
, NN O O
ARB NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
LVMi NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15014018)

A NN O O
pooled NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
eastern NN O O
cooperative NN O O
oncology NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
intergroup NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
high-dose NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
for NN O O
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Nearly NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIB NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Eastern NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
, NN O O
investigating NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
high-dose NN O O
IFN-alpha NN O I-INT
2b NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objectives NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
update NN O O
the NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
individual NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
pooled NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Survival NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
status NN O O
were NN O O
updated NN O O
to NN O O
April NN O O
2001 NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
using NN O O
optimized NN O O
statistical NN O O
models NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
E1684 NN O O
, NN O O
E1690 NN O O
, NN O O
E1694 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
E2696 NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
versus NN O O
observation NN O O
( NN O O
Obs NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
713 NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
high-dose NN O O
IFN-alpha NN O I-INT
2b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Obs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Trials NN O O
E1684 NN O O
and NN O O
E1690 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Updated NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
E1684 NN O O
, NN O O
E1690 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
E1694 NN O O
confirmed NN O O
their NN O O
original NN O O
conclusions NN O O
, NN O O
now NN O O
at NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
2.1-12.6 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
two-sided NN O O
univariate NN O O
log-rank NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
pooled NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
E1684 NN O O
and NN O O
E1690 NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
7.2 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-but NN O O
not 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
-was NN O O
significantly NN O O
prolonged NN O O
( NN O O
two-sided NN O O
log-rank NN O O
P NN O O
value NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
HDI NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Obs NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Among NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
significantly NN O O
negatively NN O O
impacted NN O O
RFS NN O O
and NN O O
OS NN O O
included NN O O
ulceration NN O O
, NN O O
recurrent NN O O
disease NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
, NN O O
enrollment NN O O
in NN O O
E1684 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
> NN O O
49 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
statistical NN O O
models NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
factors NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
RFS NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
HDI NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Obs NN O I-INT
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pooled NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
HDI NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
strong NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
improved NN O O
RFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
moderate NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
pooled NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
relapse NN O O
and NN O O
response NN O O
are NN O O
now NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
modality NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15133359)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
alternative NN O O
techniques NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
cannulation NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
biventricular NN O I-PAR
implantation NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Biventricular NN O O
pacing NN O O
system NN O O
implantation NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
time-consuming NN O O
and NN O O
challenging NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
critical NN O O
step NN O O
in NN O O
biventricular NN O O
pacemaker NN O O
implantation NN O O
is NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cannulation NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

CS NN O O
cannulation NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
either NN O O
using NN O O
dedicated NN O O
guiding NN O O
catheters NN O I-INT
( NN O O
guiding NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
positioning NN O O
strategy NN O O
, NN O O
GCA NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
aid NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
electrophysiology NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
advanced NN O I-INT
inside NN O O
the NN O O
guiding NN O O
catheter NN O O
( NN O O
electrophysiology NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
aided NN O I-INT
positioning NN O O
strategy NN O O
, NN O O
EPA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
OF NN O O
THE NN O O
STUDY NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
is NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
CS NN O I-OUT
cannulation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
GCA NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
consecutive 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
the NN O O
GCA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
18 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
CS NN O O
cannulation NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.4 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
10.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.4 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GCA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
. NN O O

Fluoroscopy NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
9.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.9 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GCA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O O
contrast NN O I-OUT
dye NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
search NN O O
and NN O O
engage NN O O
the NN O O
CS NN O O
ostium NN O O
was NN O O
0.0 NN O O
ml NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
14.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
ml NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GCA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Cannulation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
CS NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
the NN O O
adjunct NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
electrophysiology NN O O
catheter NN O O
to NN O O
dedicated NN O O
delivery NN O O
systems NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
procedural NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fluoroscopy NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
contrast NN O I-OUT
dye NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15193668)

Combined NN O O
descriptive NN O O
and NN O O
explanatory NN O O
information NN O O
improves NN O O
peers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Authors NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
descriptive NN O O
and NN O O
explanatory NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
peers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
toward NN O O
an NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
child NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
576 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10.06 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 O
two NN O O
videotapes NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
boy NN O O
engaging NN O O
in NN O O
typical NN O O
and NN O O
autistic NN O O
behaviors NN O O
receiving NN O O
either NN O O
descriptive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AUT-D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
descriptive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
explanatory NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AUT-D NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Children NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
attitudes NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Adjective NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intentions NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Shared NN O I-OUT
Activities NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Children NN O O
rated NN O O
the NN O O
typical NN O O
boy NN O O
more NN O O
favorably NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
boy NN O O
showing NN O O
autistic NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
descriptive NN O O
information NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
descriptive NN O O
and NN O O
explanatory NN O O
information NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O O
third- NN O O
and NN O O
fourth-graders NN O O
' NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
fifth-graders NN O O
' NN O O
attitudes NN O O
toward NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Combined NN O O
information NN O O
improved NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intentions NN O O
across NN O O
grades NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
girls NN O O
( NN O O
vs. NN O O
boys NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
responsive NN O O
to NN O O
information NN O O
as NN O O
evidenced NN O O
by NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
academic NN O O
intentions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
descriptive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
explanatory NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
about NN O O
autism NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Implications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
briefly NN O O
discussed NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
study NN O O
limitations NN O O
and NN O O
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15358868)

Superior NN O O
visual NN O O
search NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
perform NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
matched NN O O
controls NN O O
on NN O O
visual NN O O
search NN O O
tasks NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
stems NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
visual NN O O
discrimination NN O O
ability NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
generalize NN O O
from NN O O
children NN O O
to NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Experiments NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
like NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
at NN O O
searching NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
targets NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Experiment NN O O
3 NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
target-distractor NN O O
similarity NN O O
slowed NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
search NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
discrimination NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
experiments NN O O
replicate NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
previous NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Superior NN O O
unique NN O I-OUT
item NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
stemming NN O O
from NN O O
enhanced NN O O
discrimination NN O O
, NN O O
is 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
possible NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
stimulus NN O O
processing NN O O
disturbances NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
disorder NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15848261)

[ NN O O
Postural NN O O
biofeedback NN O O
and NN O O
locomotion NN O O
reeducation NN O O
in NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
post-acute NN O I-PAR
hemiparetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
specialised NN O I-INT
balance NN O I-INT
retraining NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
retraining NN O I-INT
( NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
) 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
both NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
left NN O O
hemiplegia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
older NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Thirteen NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
early NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
received NN O O
therapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
standing NN O I-INT
balance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
biofeedback NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BPM NN O I-INT
Monitor NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
( NN O O
J0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
when NN O O
subjects NN O O
began NN O O
to NN O O
walk NN O O
( NN O O
JM NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
later NN O O
( NN O O
JM NN O O
+ NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Gait NN O I-OUT
spatiotemporal NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
by NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Vicon NN O O
system NN O O
at NN O O
JM NN O O
and NN O O
JM NN O O
+ NN O O
30 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Whatever NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
J0 NN O O
and NN O O
JM NN O O
+ NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
spasticity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
beginning NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Gait NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
JM NN O O
and NN O O
JM NN O O
+ NN O O
30 NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
improved NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
paretic NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
single NN O I-OUT
stance NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reception NN O I-OUT
double NN O I-OUT
stance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
paretic NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
JM NN O O
and NN O O
JM NN O O
+ NN O O
30 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
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O O
biofeedback NN O O
by NN O O
forceplate NN O O
system NN O O
training NN O O
suggest NN O O
particular NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
anticipation NN O O
equilibrium NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15854186)

Cophenylcaine NN O I-INT
spray NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
flexible NN O I-PAR
nasendoscopy NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Practices NN O O
vary NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
preparation NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
flexible NN O O
fibreoptic NN O O
nasendoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomised NN O O
98 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
cophenylcaine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
before NN O O
flexible NN O I-PAR
nasendoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
1-100 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
record NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
unpleasantness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
taste NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both 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
pain NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
experienced 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
the NN O O
sensation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bad NN O I-OUT
taste NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
worse NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cophenylcaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
unpleasantness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
experience NN O O
were NN O O
primarily NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O O
and NN O O
secondarily NN O O
unpleasantness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
taste NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
cophenylcaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
nasal NN O O
preparation NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
justified NN O O
before NN O O
flexible NN O I-PAR
nasendoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15858959)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
Saccharomyces NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
diarrhoea NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
Certain NN O O
probiotic NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

Lactobacillus NN O O
GG NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
childhood NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Saccharomyces NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
diarrhoea NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
granulated NN O O
form NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
d. NN O O
Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
on NN O O
admission NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
medians NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
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 NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
group 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
4.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
5.5 NN O O
d 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 O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
on NN O O
watery NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
became NN O O
apparent NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
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
2.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.9 NN O O
d NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
children NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
child NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
persisting NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
amelioration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
diarrhoea NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
used NN O O
therapeutically NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16055807)

Interventions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O I-PAR
prodromal NN O I-PAR
states NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
psychosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
Germany NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
concept NN O O
and NN O O
recruitment NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Early NN O O
Detection NN O O
and NN O O
Intervention NN O O
Programme NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
German NN O O
Research NN O O
Network NN O O
on NN O O
Schizophrenia NN O O
( NN O O
GRNS NN O O
) NN O O
investigates NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O I-PAR
prodromal NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
psychosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
multidimensional NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
intervention NN O O
strategies NN O O
are NN O O
being NN O O
studied NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
large-scale NN O O
multicentre NN O O
projects NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
present NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
interim NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
recruitment NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Comprehensive NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
prodromal NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

For NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
prodromal NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
atypical NN O I-INT
neuroleptic NN O I-INT
amisulpride NN O I-INT
is NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
using NN O O
clinical NN O O
management NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O O
January NN O O
2001 NN O O
and NN O O
March NN O O
2003 NN O O
, NN O O
1212 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
seeking NN O I-PAR
help NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
screened NN O O
for NN O O
putative NN O O
prodromal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
university NN O O
centres NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
388 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
fulfilled NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
188 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
48.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
gave NN O I-PAR
informed NN O I-PAR
consent NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
screening NN O O
procedure NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
trial NN O O
participation NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
acceptable NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
relevant NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
people NN O O
at NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
psychosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16167234)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
branch NN O O
chain NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
digestive NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
] NN O O
. 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
branch NN O I-INT
chain NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCAA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
on NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
digestive NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
digestive NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
received NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
BCAA NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
( NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n=20 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n=20 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
seven NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Nitrogen NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prealbumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
BCAA NN O I-INT
group 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
at NN O O
the NN O O
4th NN O O
, NN O O
5th NN O O
and NN O O
7th NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
positive NN O O
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
days NN O O
earlier NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group 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
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
cumulative NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
between 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 O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
elevation NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prealbumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
7th NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
operation 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
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
BCAA-enriched NN O I-INT
group 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
P=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
TPN NN O O
with NN O O
BCAA NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
digestive NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16295154)

Intervention NN O I-INT
pilot NN O O
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
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
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic 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
experience NN O O
a NN O O
situational NN O O
crisis NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
causes NN O O
feelings NN O O
of NN O O
distress NN O O
and NN O O
urgency NN O O
to NN O O
access NN O O
services NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
child NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
describes NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
regional NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
center NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
metropolitan NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
hospital NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
refine NN O O
a NN O O
nursing NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
methodological NN O O
revisions NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
secondary NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
post-diagnosis NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
parents NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O O
is NN O O
newly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
contact NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pediatric NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
practitioner NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PNP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
assistance NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
implementation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
recommended NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
plan NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
post-diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1-hour NN O O
consultation NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
results NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
diagnostic NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
copy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
recommended NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
plan NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
developmental NN O O
pediatrician NN O O
and/or NN O O
PNP NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
perceived NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant 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
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
larger NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
recommended NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
expanded NN O O
nursing NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
recruited NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
recruitment NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

Nurses NN O O
working NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
special NN O O
population NN O O
must NN O O
recognize NN O O
that NN O O
parents NN O O
have NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
counseling NN O O
needs NN O O
that NN O O
begin NN O O
after NN O O
they NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
address NN O O
these NN O O
needs NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
nursing NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16427787)

Sleep-anticipating NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
brain NN O O
. NN O O

Melatonin NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
hormone NN O O
produced NN O O
nocturnally NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
pineal NN O O
gland NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
endogenous NN O O
regulator NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sleep-wake NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
brain NN O O
activities NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
sleepiness NN O O
were NN O O
studied 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 NN O O
controlled NN O O
functional NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
fMRI NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Melatonin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
task-related NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
rostro-medial NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
occipital NN O O
cortex NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
visual-search NN O O
task NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
auditory NN O O
cortex NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
music NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
effects NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
parahippocampus NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
autobiographic NN O O
memory NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
modulates NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
manner NN O O
resembling NN O O
actual NN O O
sleep NN O O
although NN O O
subjects NN O O
are NN O O
fully NN O O
awake NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
inducing NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
brain NN O O
activity NN O O
is NN O O
essentially NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
thus NN O O
revealing NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
fatigues NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
circadian NN O O
sleep NN O O
regulation NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
homeostatic NN O O
sleep NN O O
need NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
highlight NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
priming NN O O
sleep-associated NN O O
brain NN O O
activation NN O O
patterns NN O O
in NN O O
anticipation NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16505427)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
dosing NN O O
schedules NN O O
of NN O O
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
maintenance NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
once NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
continued NN O O
weekly NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer-associated NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
at NN O O
enrollment NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
three NN O O
weekly NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
40,000 NN O O
U NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
( NN O O
SC NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
standard NN O O
weekly NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40K NN O O
arm NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
120,000 NN O O
U NN O O
of NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
( NN O O
120K NN O O
arm NN O O
) NN O O
SC NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
18 NN O O
additional NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hundred NN O O
eighty-three NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
40K NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
182 NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
120K NN O O
arm 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
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
requiring NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
40K NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
120K NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.22 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
specifically NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
40K NN O O
arm NN O O
v NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
120K NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.58 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
40K NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
held NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
Hb NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
mean NN O O
end-of-study NN O O
Hb NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
40K NN O O
arm NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
unclear NN O O
reasons NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
120K NN O O
arm NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
so NN O O
end-of-study NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
equivalent NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
After NN O O
three NN O O
weekly NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
40,000 NN O O
U NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
120,000 NN O O
U NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
safely NN O O
once NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
transfusion NN O I-OUT
needs NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
sacrificing NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
Hb NN O I-OUT
increment NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
somewhat NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
continued NN O O
weekly NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
blinding NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
schedules NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
confounded NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1669598)

Local NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
by NN O O
inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
powder NN O O
extract NN O O
in NN O O
asthma NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
house NN O O
dust NN O O
mite NN O O
Dermatophagoides NN O O
pteronyssinus NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
parenteral NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
verify NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
local NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
LI NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
powder NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
house NN O I-INT
dust NN O I-INT
mite NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
by NN O O
injection NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
HDM NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
underwent NN O O
LI NN O O
and NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
underwent NN O O
PI NN O O
and NN O O
inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
lactose NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
each NN O O
inhalation NN O O
was NN O O
preceded NN O O
by NN O O
premedication NN O O
with NN O O
disodium NN O I-INT
cromoglycate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DSCG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-derived NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
already NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
lost NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bronchial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
challenge NN O O
with NN O O
HDM NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
variation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
bronchial NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
methacholine NN O O
and NN O O
ultrasonically NN O O
nebulized NN O O
distilled NN O O
water NN O O
( NN O O
UNDW NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
immunologic NN O I-OUT
humoral NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cellular NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
important NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
LI NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
PI NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
HDM NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
LI NN O O
is NN O O
locally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
DSCG NN O O
is NN O O
inhaled NN O O
before NN O O
each NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
inhalation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
induce NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17293018)

The NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
whey NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
derived NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
milk NN O O
of NN O O
cows NN O O
immunized NN O O
against NN O O
Clostridium NN O O
difficile NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
whey NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
prepared NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
milk NN O O
of NN O O
cows NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
immunized NN O I-INT
against NN O I-INT
Clostridium NN O I-INT
difficile NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C. NN O I-INT
difficile NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
toxins NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
toxin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
toxin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
produced NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
medical NN O O
food NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
dietary NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
C. NN O I-PAR
difficile-associated NN O I-PAR
diarrhea NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CDAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
a NN O O
relapse NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
anti-C. NN O I-INT
difficile NN O I-INT
whey NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
anti-CD NN O I-INT
WPC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
analytical NN O O
data NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
raw NN O O
milk NN O O
from NN O O
immunized NN O O
cows NN O O
versus NN O O
that NN O O
from NN O O
non-immunized NN O O
cows NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
anti-CD NN O I-INT
WPC NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
whey NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
77 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CDAD NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
consuming NN O O
anti-CD NN O I-INT
WPC NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
relapse NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
included NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
monitoring NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
examinations NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
extensive NN O O
hematological NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
assessments NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
anti-CD NN O I-INT
WPC NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
consume NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CDAD NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
available NN O O
analytical NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
anti-CD NN O I-INT
WPC NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
use NN O O
by NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CDAD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
described NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17321989)

The NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
capsules NN O O
and NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
capsules NN O O
for NN O O
systemic NN O O
fungal NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
myelodysplastic NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
, 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
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
capsule NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
110 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
108 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
myelodysplastic NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
4 NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
possible NN O O
systemic NN O O
fungal NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
8 NN O O
possible NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
probable NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
MDS NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
remission-induction NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
probable NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
possible NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
itraconazole NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluconazole NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
AML NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
consolidation NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
counts NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
0.1 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
lasting NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluconazole NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
itraconazole NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 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
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
MDS NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
itraconazole NN O O
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
systemic NN O O
fungal NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
fluconazole NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17616069)

[ NN O O
Intravenous NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O O
with NN O O
trivalent NN O I-INT
ferrum NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
] NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
OF NN O O
THE NN O O
STUDY NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safeness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pospartal NN O O
anemia NN O O
with NN O O
trivalent NN O I-INT
ferrum NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
. NN O O

TYPE NN O O
OF NN O O
THE NN O O
STUDY NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
Obstetric NN O O
and NN O O
Gynecology NN O O
2nd NN O O
Medical NN O O
Faculty NN O O
Charles NN O O
University NN O O
and NN O O
Teaching NN O O
Hospital NN O O
Motol NN O O
, NN O O
Prague NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
Obstetric NN O O
and NN O O
Gynecology NN O O
1st NN O O
Medical NN O O
Faculty NN O O
and NN O O
Teaching NN O O
Hospital NN O O
Bulovka NN O O
, NN O O
Prague NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
sacharose NN O I-INT
ferric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Venofer NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
intravenously NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
days NN O O
regimen NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lab NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
postpartal NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
administered NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
comparsion NN O O
of NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
recovered NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
2nd NN O O
or NN O O
3rd NN O O
day NN O O
post NN O O
administration NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
receptors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
as NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
reserves NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
too NN O O
. NN O O

Integral NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Venofer NN O I-INT
came NN O O
in NN O O
sight NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
drug NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pospartal NN O O
anemia NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
become NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
blood NN O O
transfusion NN O O
in NN O O
mid-severe NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
emphasized NN O O
that NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
encountered NN O O
any NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
intravenous NN O O
trivalent NN O I-INT
saccharose NN O I-INT
ferric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1780092)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
and NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
nimesulide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
suppository NN O O
formulation NN O O
in NN O O
pain-inflammatory NN O O
pathologies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ear NN O O
, NN O O
nose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
throat NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
pharmaceutical NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
non-steroid NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Nimesulide NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
flurbiprofen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
98 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
pain-inflammatory NN O I-PAR
pathologies NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ENT NN O I-PAR
nature NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
suppository NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
marked NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antipyretic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
progressive NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
typical NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O

Nimesulide NN O I-INT
evidenced NN O O
greater NN O O
speed NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O

Assessment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
expressed NN O O
separately NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
were NN O O
positive NN O O
in NN O O
almost NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17897478)

Salmeterol NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
compared NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O O
controlled NN O O
on NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
, NN O O
and 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
different NN O O
treatments NN O O
on NN O O
airway NN O O
inflammation NN O O
. NN O O

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
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Seretide NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
SFC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
FP NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FP/M NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
SFC NN O I-INT
or NN O O
FP/M NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eosinophil NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
macrophage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
epithelial NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
induced NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cells NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
SFC NN O I-INT
generally NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
FP/M NN O I-INT
. NN O O

FP/M NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
cysteinyl NN O I-OUT
leukotrienes NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
SFC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.80 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.09 NN O O
, NN O O
2.94 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
similar NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
eosinophilic NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
PEF NN O O
and NN O O
symptom NN O O
control NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
SFC NN O I-INT
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
: NN O O
SAM40030 NN O O
( NN O O
SOLTA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18077611)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
refrigerator-stable NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
Zostavax NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
vaccine NN O O
Zostavax NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
herpes NN O O
zoster NN O O
( NN O O
HZ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
postherpetic NN O O
neuralgia NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=60 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
refrigerator-stable NN O O
formulation NN O O
( NN O O
Zostavax NN O I-INT
refrigerated NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
formulation NN O O
( NN O O
Zostavax NN O I-INT
frozen NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
HZ NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1:1 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O

Enrollment NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
1:2 NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
postvaccination NN O O
. NN O O

Varicella-zoster NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VZV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
glycoprotein NN O O
enzyme-linked NN O O
immunosorbent NN O O
assay NN O O
( NN O O
gpELISA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
VZV NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
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 O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
VZV NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GMR NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vaccine-related NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
refrigerated NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
182 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
frozen NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
185 NN O O
) NN O O
formulations NN O O
induced NN O O
similar NN O O
GMTs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
727.4 NN O O
and NN O O
834.4 NN O O
gpELISA NN O O
units/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O O
GMT NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
refrigerated NN O O
formulation/frozen NN O O
formulation NN O O
) NN O O
was 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
0.71 NN O O
to NN O O
1.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
GMRs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
2.6- NN O O
and NN O O
2.9-fold NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
vaccine-related NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
AEs 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
and NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
formulations NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequencies NN O O
of NN O O
injection-site NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
35.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
46.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
refrigerated NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
frozen NN O O
formulation NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
mild NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequencies NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
AEs 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
and NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine-related NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
approximately NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
refrigerator-stable NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
Zostavax NN O I-INT
has NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
immunogenic NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
frozen NN O O
formulation NN O O
; NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
settings NN O O
where NN O O
freezer NN O O
availability NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18189160)

Feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
dose-dense NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
with NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Central NN O O
European NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
CECOG NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Addition NN O O
of NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
can NN O O
provide NN O O
important NN O O
benefits NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early 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
optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
improvements NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
dose-dense NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
densification NN O O
of NN O O
fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FEC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
proved NN O O
difficult NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
FEC NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
) NN O O
providing NN O O
little NN O O
benefit NN O O
over NN O O
standard NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
) NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
intermediate NN O O
dose-dense NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
drugs NN O O
given NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
14-day NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
pegfilgrastim NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
mg NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injection NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
cycle 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
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
=85 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
by 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
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FEC NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
FEC NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
147 NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
) NN O O
infusions NN O O
, NN O O
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
delayed NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
9.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
143 NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
infusions NN O O
were NN O O
delayed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
delay NN O O
were NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
personal/logistical NN O O
reasons NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
dose NN O O
reduction NN O O
occurred NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Grade NN O O
3-4 NN O O
haematological NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study 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
increases NN O O
in NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
no NN O O
event NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
throat NN O I-OUT
oedema NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
dose-dense NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
feasible NN O O
with NN O O
pegfilgrastim NN O O
support NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
regimens NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
Grade NN O O
3-4 NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18229990)

Language NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
play NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
JA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
symbolic NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preschool NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
prediction NN O O
to NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
12 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
JA NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
SP NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Interventions NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
5-6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
of NN O O
JA NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SP NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mother-child NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
: NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postintervention NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
postintervention NN O O
by NN O O
independent NN O O
testers NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups 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
and NN O O
results NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
interventions NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
children NN O O
participated NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
children NN O O
beginning NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
language NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
JA NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
improved NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
SP NN O I-INT
or NN O O
control NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
actively NN O O
treating NN O O
JA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
SP NN O I-INT
skills 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
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18337284)

Once-daily NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
V NN O I-INT
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
beta-haemolytic NN O I-PAR
streptococcal NN O I-PAR
pharyngitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Rheumatic NN O O
fever NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
preventable NN O O
chronic NN O O
disease NN O O
preceded NN O O
by NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
beta-haemolytic NN O I-PAR
streptococcal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GABHS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
pharyngitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
non-inferiority NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
once-daily NN O O
( NN O O
QD NN O O
) NN O O
oral NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
( NN O O
BID NN O O
) NN O O
oral NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
V NN O I-INT
in NN O O
GABHS NN O O
pharyngitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
non-inferiority NN O I-OUT
trial NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
school-based NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Zealand NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GABHS NN O I-PAR
pharyngitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
1500 NN O O
mg NN O O
QD NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
750 NN O O
mg NN O O
if NN O O
bodyweight NN O O
was NN O O
< NN O O
or=30 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
V NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
if NN O O
bodyweight NN O O
was NN O O
< NN O O
or=20 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Observed NN O O
medication NN O O
and NN O O
weekend NN O O
diary NN O O
cards NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
adherence NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOME NN O O
Eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GABHS NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
determined NN O O
with NN O O
follow-up NN O O
throat NN O O
cultures NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
3-6 NN O O
, NN O O
12-16 NN O O
and NN O O
26-36 NN O O
. NN O O

GABHS NN O O
isolates NN O O
were NN O O
serotyped NN O O
to NN O O
distinguish NN O O
bacteriological NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
and NN O O
relapses NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
from NN O O
new NN O O
acquisitions NN O O
. NN O O

Non-inferiority NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as 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
( NN O O
CL NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
eradication NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
V NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
or=10 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
353 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
throat NN O I-PAR
swabs NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
GABHS NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
177 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
V NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
176 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
upper NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CL NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
positive NN O O
cultures NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
was NN O O
4.9 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
3-6 NN O O
, NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
12-16 NN O O
and NN O O
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
26-36 NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
including NN O O
relapses NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
visit NN O O
in NN O O
5.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
12.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
10.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
and NN O O
6.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
11.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
V NN O O
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
unsubstantiated NN O O
acute NN O O
rheumatic NN O O
fever NN O O
occurred NN O O
after NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
adequately NN O O
powered NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
once-daily NN O O
oral NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
V NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
GABHS NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pharyngitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18503531)

A NN O O
multi-component NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
the NN O O
Junior NN O I-INT
Detective NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
multi-component NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children 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 O
The NN O O
Junior NN O O
Detective NN O O
Training NN O O
Program NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
7-week NN O O
program NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
computer NN O O
game NN O O
, NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
sessions NN O O
and NN O O
teacher NN O O
handouts NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
wait-list NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Relative NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
wait-list NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
program NN O O
participants NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
parent-report NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Teacher-report NN O O
data NN O O
also NN O O
confirmed NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
made NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
group NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
appropriate NN O O
emotion-management NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
story NN O O
characters NN O O
at NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
pre-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
not 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
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
improvements NN O O
made NN O O
by NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
conditions NN O O
on NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body-posture NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
gains NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
by NN O O
children NN O O
at NN O O
5-months NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
Junior NN O I-INT
Detective NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Limitations NN O O
and NN O O
suggestions 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- (18544974)

In NN O O
school-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
galacto-oligosaccharides NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
GG NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
GG NN O I-INT
on NN O O
its NN O O
own 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
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
GG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LGG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
galacto-oligosaccharides NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GOS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
LGG NN O I-INT
on NN O O
its NN O O
own NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O O
microbiota NN O O
in NN O O
school-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
comprised NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
two NN O O
3-week NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
between NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O O
ingested NN O O
daily NN O O
65 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
milk-based NN O O
fruit NN O O
juice NN O O
containing NN O O
either NN O O
LGG NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
6.5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
CFU NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
LGG NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
GOS NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Symptom NN O O
diaries NN O O
were NN O O
filled NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Fecal NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
and NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bifidobacteria NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
LGG NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
GOS NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
LGG NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
geometric NN O O
mean NN O O
9.33 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.28 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
CFU/g 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
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
lactobacilli NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
LGG NN O I-INT
, NN O O
nor NN O O
did NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
defecation NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stools NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
defecation NN O I-OUT
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
LGG NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
GOS NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
the NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
LGG NN O I-INT
on NN O O
its NN O O
own NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
GOS NN O I-INT
clearly NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
prebiotic NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
tolerated NN O O
well NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
GOS NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18773733)

Vibrotactile NN O O
-- NN O O
auditory NN O O
interactions NN O O
are NN O O
post-perceptual NN O O
. NN O O

Vibrotactile NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
can NN O O
elicit NN O O
compelling NN O O
auditory NN O O
sensations NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
sound NN O O
energy NN O O
levels NN O O
are NN O O
minimal NN O O
and NN O O
undetectable NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
previously NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
subjects NN O O
judge NN O O
auditory NN O O
tones NN O O
embedded NN O O
in NN O O
white NN O O
noise NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
louder NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
vibrotactile NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
frequency NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
first NN O O
experiment NN O O
replicated NN O O
this NN O O
result NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
auditory NN O O
stimulation NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
tone NN O O
, NN O O
tone NN O O
at NN O O
detection NN O O
threshold NN O O
, NN O O
tone NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
dB NN O O
above NN O O
threshold NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
tone NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
dB NN O O
above NN O O
threshold NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
vibrotactile NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
perceived NN O O
loudness NN O O
of NN O O
auditory NN O I-OUT
tones NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
two NN O O
further NN O O
experiments NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
2-interval NN O O
forced-choice NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
cross-modal NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
biased NN O O
when NN O O
vibrotaction NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
applying NN O O
vibrotaction NN O I-INT
in NN O O
both NN O O
intervals NN O O
produced NN O O
performance NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
conditions NN O O
without NN O O
vibrotactile NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
. NN O O

This NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
vibrotaction NN O I-INT
is NN O O
sometimes NN O O
ignored NN O O
when NN O O
judging NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
auditory NN O O
tone NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
vibrotaction NN O I-INT
and NN O O
audition NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
occur NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
perceptual NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18783504)

Psychological NN O O
mediators NN O O
of NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
sustained-release NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
sustained-release NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
putative NN O O
mediators NN O O
and NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
post-quit NN O O
abstinence NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
distress NN O O
, NN O O
cigarette NN O O
craving NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O O
affect NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
reactions NN O O
to NN O O
cigarettes NN O O
smoked NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
lapse NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
were NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
mediation NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Center NN O O
for NN O O
Tobacco NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Intervention NN O O
, NN O O
Madison NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
WI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
USA NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
403 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
contraindications NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
use NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
9-week NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
pill NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
eight NN O O
brief NN O O
individual NN O O
counseling NN O O
sessions NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
counseling NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Ecological NN O I-OUT
momentary NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
putative NN O I-OUT
mediators NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-quit NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
structural NN O O
equation NN O O
and NN O O
hierarchical NN O O
linear NN O O
models NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
bupropion NN O O
SR NN O O
treatment NN O O
improves NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
distress NN O O
or NN O O
affecting NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
lapse NN O O
cigarette NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
provided NN O O
partial NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
mediation NN O O
by NN O O
cigarette NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
enhanced NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
point-prevalence NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
post-quit NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
mediated NN O O
partially NN O O
by NN O O
enhanced NN O O
motivation NN O O
to NN O O
quit NN O O
and NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Results NN O O
provided NN O O
some NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
relapse NN O O
and NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
motivational NN O O
processes NN O O
may NN O O
partially NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
bupropion NN O O
SR NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18845996)

Identifying NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
neutropenic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
pegylated NN O I-INT
liposomal NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
: NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prediction NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
cycle-based NN O O
risk NN O O
prediction NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
neutropenic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DOX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
pegylated NN O I-INT
liposomal NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients 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
MBC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
analyzed NN O O
was NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
DOX 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
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
line NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
MBC NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
509 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
O'Brien NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
, NN O O
Ann NN O O
Oncol NN O O
. NN O O

2004 NN O O
; NN O O
15:440-449 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

NC NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
=1.5 NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
9 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cells/L NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=grade NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
documented NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
and NN O O
hematologic NN O O
factors NN O O
potentially NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
NC NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Factors NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
P NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=0.25 NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
cycle NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
generalized NN O O
estimating NN O O
equations NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
backward NN O O
elimination NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
derived NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
scoring NN O O
algorithm NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0-63 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
reduced NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Risk NN O O
factors NN O O
retained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
included NN O O
poor NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
=2.0 NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
9 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cells/L NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
cycle NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
DOX NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
advanced NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

A NN O O
precycle NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=25 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
40 NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
given NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
being NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
threshold NN O O
for NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
( NN O O
58.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
( NN O O
78.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
score NN O O
at NN O O
or NN O O
beyond NN O O
this NN O O
threshold NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
developing NN O O
NC NN O O
in NN O O
later NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
model NN O O
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
by NN O O
targeting NN O O
preventative NN O O
therapies NN O O
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
granulocyte NN O O
colony NN O O
stimulating NN O O
factor NN O O
or NN O O
PLD NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
MBC NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
most NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
experience NN O O
NC NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
anthracycline-based NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18958161)

Neural NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
self NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
representation NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
an NN O O
FMRI NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
self-face NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
decreased NN O O
interest NN O O
and NN O O
engagement NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
interactions NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
enhanced NN O O
self-focus NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
previous NN O O
theoretical NN O O
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
understanding NN O O
autism NN O O
have NN O O
emphasized NN O O
social NN O O
impairments NN O O
and NN O O
altered NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
interactions NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
shift NN O O
towards NN O O
understanding NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
representation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
self NN O O
in NN O O
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
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Still NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
subserving NN O O
self-representations NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
are NN O O
relatively NN O O
unexplored NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
event-related NN O O
fMRI NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
own NN O O
face NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
faces NN O O
of NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
viewed NN O O
randomly NN O O
presented NN O O
digital NN O O
morphs NN O O
between NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
face NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
gender-matched NN O O
other NN O O
face NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
made NN O O
self/other NN O O
judgments NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
activated NN O O
a NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
premotor/prefrontal NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
identifying NN O O
images NN O O
containing NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
self NN O O
face NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
TD NN O O
children NN O O
showed NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
system NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O O
self- NN O O
and NN O O
other-processing NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
only NN O O
recruited NN O O
this NN O O
system NN O O
while NN O O
viewing NN O O
images NN O O
containing NN O O
mostly NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
face NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
This NN O O
functional NN O O
dissociation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
representation NN O O
of NN O O
self NN O O
versus NN O O
others NN O O
points NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
neural NN O O
substrate NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
characteristic NN O O
self-focus NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
social NN O O
understanding NN O O
exhibited NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
individuals NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
lack NN O O
the NN O O
shared NN O O
neural NN O O
representations NN O O
for NN O O
self NN O O
and NN O O
others NN O O
that NN O O
TD NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
adults NN O O
possess NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
use NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18975051)

Bolus NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
agents NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
iodine NN O O
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
delivery NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
intracranial NN O O
three-dimensional NN O O
CT NN O O
angiography NN O O
: NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
intracranial NN O I-OUT
arteriovenous NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
multidetector-row NN O O
CT NN O O
scanner NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
( NN O O
CT NN O O
) NN O O
attenuation NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intracranial NN O O
arterial NN O O
and NN O O
venous NN O O
systems NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
contrast NN O O
injection NN O O
protocols NN O O
( NN O O
higher NN O O
iodine NN O O
delivery NN O O
rate NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
agent NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
source NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
intracranial NN O O
three-dimensional NN O O
CT NN O O
angiography NN O O
( NN O O
3D-CTA NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
multidetector-row NN O O
CT NN O O
( NN O O
MDCT NN O O
) NN O O
scanner NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
100 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
iopamidol NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
injection NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
3.0 NN O O
ml/s NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
iopamidol NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
injection NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
3.7 NN O O
ml/s NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
iopamidol NN O I-INT
370 NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
injection NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
3.0 NN O O
ml/s NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Attenuation NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bilateral NN O I-OUT
internal NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
arteries NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICAs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
basilar NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
trunk NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bilateral NN O I-OUT
cavernous NN O I-OUT
sinuses NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Galenic NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
quantitatively NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
axial NN O O
CT NN O O
angiographic NN O O
source NN O O
images NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
four-channel NN O O
MDCT NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Injection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
high-concentration NN O O
contrast NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
iodine-delivery NN O O
rate NN O O
achieved NN O O
good NN O O
arteriovenous NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
cavernous NN O O
portion NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
iodine NN O O
delivery NN O O
, NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intermediate NN O O
concentrate NN O O
agent NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
ICAs NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
the NN O O
CSs NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
High-concentration NN O O
contrast NN O O
could NN O O
increase NN O O
ICA NN O I-OUT
attenuation NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
intracavernous NN O I-OUT
attenuation NN O I-OUT
gain NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first-pass NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19096921)

Trial NN O O
design NN O O
challenges NN O O
when NN O O
combining NN O O
medication NN O I-INT
and NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training 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 O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
24-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
structured NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
would NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
only NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
noncompliance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
medication NN O O
reduces NN O O
tantrums NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-injury NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
promotes NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
noncompliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
medication NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
target NN O O
related NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
separate NN O O
, NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
was NN O O
gradually NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
managed NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
dose NN O O
or NN O O
off NN O O
medication NN O O
without NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
clinical NN O O
treatment NN O O
targets NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
experimental NN O O
evidence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
combining NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
exportable NN O O
behavioral NN O O
interventions NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19108790)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: 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
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
surgery NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
high NN O O
incidence NN O O
of 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
PONV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Between NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
undergo NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
axillary NN O O
dissection NN O O
) NN O O
experience NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

We NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
subhypnotic NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
undergo NN O O
mastectomy 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
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
subhypnotic NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
antiemetics NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS 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 O
study NN O O
, NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
IV NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
skin NN O O
suture NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
standard NN O O
general NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
and NN O O
air NN O O
in NN O O
oxygen NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
administration NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
investigator NN O O
who NN O O
was NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
investigator NN O O
questioned NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
experienced NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

To NN O O
maintain NN O O
the NN O O
integrity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
preanesthetic NN O O
medication 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
100 NN O I-PAR
women 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
52 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
height NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
154 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) 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

Each NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
comprised NN O O
25 NN O O
patients 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
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O O
demographics NN O O
, NN O O
surgery NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
awakening NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevalences NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
0 NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
were NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
propofol 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
32 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS 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
68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
prevalences NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.022 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
reported 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
prevalences NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
select NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
Japanese NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevalences NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19159999)

To NN O O
compare 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
nifedipine NN O I-INT
sustained NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
with NN O O
Ginkgo NN O I-INT
biloba NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
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
phenomenon NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Korea NN O I-PAR
; NN O O
Korean NN O O
Raynaud NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
KOARA NN O O
study 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
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
sustained NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
( NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Ginkgo NN O I-INT
biloba NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O O
Raynaud NN O O
's NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
( NN O O
RP NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Korea NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
RP NN O O
were NN O O
screened NN O O
and NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
N NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
Ginkgo NN O I-INT
biloba NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
G NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
2:1 NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
observed NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
RP NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
8-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-three NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percent NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
N NN O O
was NN O O
50.1 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
31.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
G NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
almost NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
without NN O O
specific NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

nifedipine NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
Ginkgo NN O I-INT
biloba NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
RP NN O O
in NN O O
Korean NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
tolerable NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
primary NN O O
RP NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19301724)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CFNB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CEI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
and NN O O
knee NN O O
rehabilitation 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
TKA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
( NN O O
EA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FNB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
effective NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
However NN O O
, NN O O
EA NN O O
has NN O O
common NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
nausea NN O O
, NN O O
vomiting NN O O
, NN O O
pruritus NN O O
, NN O O
dizziness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hypotension NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
investigations NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
those NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
FNB NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
EA NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
equivalent NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
techniques NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
confirmed NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
compared NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CEI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CFNB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
rehabilitation 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
( NN O I-OUT
LOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
61 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I-III NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
unilateral 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
under NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
ward 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
CEI NN O I-INT
) NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
0.125 NN O O
% NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
0.0125 NN O O
mg/ml NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
ml/hr NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
CFNB NN O I-INT
) NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
by NN O O
0.125 NN O O
% NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
ml/hr NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CFNB NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
PO6-12 NN O O
hr NN O O
and NN O O
tramadol NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
CEI NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
: NN O O
PO6 NN O O
hr NN O O
p-value NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
PO12 NN O O
hr NN O O
p-value NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CEI NN O I-INT
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
CFNB NN O I-INT
group NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
CFNB NN O I-INT
group NN O O
although NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
rehabilitation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
LOS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
CFNB NN O I-INT
represents NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
analgesia NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
greater NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19376304)

Rationale NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
RE-LY NN O O
: NN O O
randomized NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
dabigatran NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Vitamin NN O O
K NN O O
antagonists NN O O
( NN O O
VKAs NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
stroke NN O O
prevention NN O O
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
but NN O O
are NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Dabigatran NN O I-INT
etexilate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
prodrug NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
rapidly NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
direct NN O O
thrombin NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
dabigatran NN O I-INT
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
dose NN O O
without NN O O
laboratory NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
being NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
international NN O O
normalized NN O O
ratio NN O O
2-3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RE-LY NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
dabigatran NN O I-INT
( NN O O
110 NN O O
and NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
being NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RE-LY NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
multinational NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
countries NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonvalvular NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Recruitment NN O O
concluded NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
18,113 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
VKA-naive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
balanced NN O I-PAR
proportions NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
hemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Safety NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Adjudication NN O O
of NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
is NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
drug NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
accrue NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
450 NN O O
events NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
1-year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RE-LY NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
AF NN O O
stroke NN O O
prevention NN O O
trial NN O O
yet NN O O
undertaken NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
unique NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
includes NN O O
equal NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
VKA-experienced NN O O
and NN O O
naive NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
evaluates NN O O
2 NN O O
different NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
dabigatran NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
allow NN O O
tailoring NN O O
of NN O O
dosing NN O O
to NN O O
individual NN O O
patient NN O O
needs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
worldwide NN O O
site NN O O
distribution NN O O
and NN O O
broad NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
risk NN O O
further NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
applicability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
are NN O O
expected NN O O
in NN O O
2009 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1963383)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
liu NN O I-INT
wei NN O I-INT
di NN O I-INT
huang NN O I-INT
or NN O O
jin NN O I-INT
gui NN O I-INT
shen NN O I-INT
qi NN O I-INT
decoction NN O O
as NN O O
on NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment 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 O
. NN O O

Eighty-three 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
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
Chinese NN O O
Kidney-tonifying NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Liu NN O I-INT
Wei NN O I-INT
Di NN O I-INT
Huang NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Jin NN O I-INT
Gui NN O I-INT
Shen NN O I-INT
Qi NN O I-INT
medicinal NN O O
decoction NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
or NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
courses NN O O
. NN O O

74 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
availble NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
well-matched NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
stage NN O O
and NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
. 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
in NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups 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
( NN O O
CR+PR NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
91.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herb NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
46.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for 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
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
Chinese NN O O
Kidney-tonifying NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
for 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
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Kaplan-meire NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Chinese NN O O
herb NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
better 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

10 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herb NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
alive NN O O
beyond NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Until NN O O
now NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herb NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
enjoying NN O O
their NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
much NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
of 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
0.005 NN O O
and NN O O
0.01/WBC NN O O
and NN O O
BPC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
animal NN O O
experiments NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
traditional NN O O
medicinal NN O O
decoctions NN O O
as NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
clinic NN O O
have NN O O
showed NN O O
immuno-enhancement NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
have NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
Kidney-tonifying NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
non-specific NN O O
immunology NN O O
activities NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
much NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
solid NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1968178)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
cuff NN O O
inflation NN O O
on NN O O
self-recorded NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
continuously NN O O
recorded NN O O
'Finapres NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
finger NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ten NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
induced NN O O
by NN O O
self-inflation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
cuff NN O I-INT
or NN O O
just NN O I-INT
wearing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
inflated NN O I-INT
cuff NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Inflating NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
cuff NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
an NN O O
instantaneous NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
13 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
and NN O O
normotensive NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Wearing NN O O
the NN O O
inflated NN O I-INT
cuff NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
the NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
muscular NN O O
activity NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
cuff NN O I-INT
inflation NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
7 NN O O
s NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
most NN O O
21 NN O O
s NN O O
to NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
level NN O O
after NN O O
stopping NN O O
cuff NN O O
inflation NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
first NN O O
Korotkoff NN O O
sounds NN O O
may NN O O
already NN O O
be NN O O
heard NN O O
after NN O O
10-15 NN O O
s NN O O
when NN O O
following NN O O
recommended NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
self-recorded NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
recorded NN O O
as NN O O
too NN O O
high NN O O
when NN O O
subjects NN O O
inflate NN O O
their NN O O
cuff NN O O
at NN O O
too NN O O
low NN O O
a NN O O
pressure NN O O
or NN O O
deflate NN O O
it NN O O
too NN O O
fast NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19708562)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
transcranial NN O I-INT
electrostimulation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
characteristics NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
58 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
supplemented NN O O
by NN O O
transcranial NN O I-INT
electrotherapy NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
TRANSAIR-02 NN O O
apparatus NN O O
. NN O O

Laboratory NN O O
studies NN O O
included NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
lactoferrin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tumour NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-alpha NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
besides NN O O
standard NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

Combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
electrostimulation NN O I-INT
) NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
main NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
depending NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
ulceration NN O O
process NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
sex NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
facilitated NN O O
ulcer NN O I-OUT
scarring NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
had NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
dynamics NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
LF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19727232)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
integrative NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
integrative NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
provide NN O O
them NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
rehabilitative NN O O
treatment 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
81 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
selected NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
DSM-4 NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
case NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
respectively NN O O
received NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
integrative NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O O
no NN O O
training NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
multiple NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
using NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
manifestation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Autism 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 O
intelligence NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
manifestations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
IQ NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
IQ NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
with NN O O
Gesell NN O O
and NN O O
WPPSI NN O O
or NN O O
WISC-R NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
40 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
integrative NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O O
41 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
greatly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
aspects NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
disorders NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
typical NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
changed NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IQ NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
DQ NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
increased NN O O
and NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
dropped NN O O
. NN O O

The 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
greatly NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
statistics 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
decreasing NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IQ NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
negatively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
decreasing NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
in NN O O
line NN O O
regression NN O O
( NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
base NN O O
IQ NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
integrative NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
could NN O O
greatly NN O O
improve NN O O
on NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
difficulties NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
typical NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
developmental NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
positive NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
its NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19802506)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
24-month NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SUMMARY NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
risedronate NN O O
, NN O O
calcium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
in NN O O
maintaining NN O O
or NN O O
improving NN O O
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
223 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=50 NN O O
% NN O O
adherent NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
lose NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BCS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
taking NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
had NN O O
increased NN O O
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
at NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
, NN O O
femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
, NN O O
L1-L4 NN O O
spine NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
radius NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
radius NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
also NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
strength/weight NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
had NN O O
greater NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
greater NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
also NN O O
exercised NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
preserve NN O O
( NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
maintain NN O O
) NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
BCS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
223 NN O I-PAR
) 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
plus NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
or NN O O
medication NN O I-INT
only NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
1,200 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O O
400 NN O O
IU NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
weekly NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
additionally NN O O
had NN O O
ST NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
weekly NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
took NN O O
medications NN O I-INT
without NN O O
exercising NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
( NN O O
+1.81 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
spine NN O O
( NN O O
+2.85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
Alkphase NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
NTx NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-16.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
who NN O O
also NN O O
exercised NN O I-INT
had NN O O
additional NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
( NN O O
+0.29 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
( NN O O
+0.34 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
spine NN O O
( NN O O
+0.23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
radius NN O O
( NN O O
+0.30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
additional NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
Alkphase NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
NTx NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
exercise NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=50 NN O O
% NN O O
adherent NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
lose NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
[ NN O O
1 NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
4.66 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
femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
[ NN O O
1 NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
4.63 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Strength/weight NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
BCS NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20147856)

Randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
schedules NN O O
of NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
oral NN O O
S-1 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chemo-na?ve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced 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 O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
dosing NN O O
schedules NN O O
of NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
S-1 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chemo-na?ve 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
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chemo-na?ve NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIB/IV 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
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
oral NN O O
S-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
mg/m/d NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
with NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg/m/d NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
cycle NN O O
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days 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
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
were NN O O
22.0 NN O O
and NN O O
28.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.606 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
3.6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
4.8 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
4.1 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
5.5 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
was NN O O
15.5 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
18.8 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
relatively NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
very NN O O
much NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
arms 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 O
S-1 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
advanced NN O O
non-small NN O O
cell NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
selected NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
higher NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20189026)

Remote NN O I-INT
ischaemic NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
before NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
complement NN O O
to NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
salvage NN O I-OUT
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 O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Remote NN O I-INT
ischaemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
attenuates NN O O
cardiac NN O O
injury NN O O
at NN O O
elective NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
angioplasty 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
remote NN O I-INT
ischaemic NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
during NN O O
evolving NN O O
ST-elevation NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
done NN O O
before NN O O
primary NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
increases NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
salvage NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
333 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
1:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
by NN O O
computerised NN O O
block NN O O
randomisation NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
primary NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
( NN O O
n=166 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
without NN O O
( NN O O
n=167 NN O O
) NN O O
remote NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
( NN O O
intermittent NN O O
arm NN O O
ischaemia NN O O
through NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
5-min NN O O
inflation NN O O
and NN O O
5-min NN O O
deflation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
blood-pressure NN O O
cuff NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Allocation NN O O
was NN O O
concealed NN O O
with NN O O
opaque NN O O
sealed NN O O
envelopes NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
received NN O O
remote NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
during NN O O
transport NN O O
to NN O O
hospital NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
primary NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
salvage NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
percutaneous NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
salvaged NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
per NN O O
protocol 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
NCT00435266 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
82 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
arrival NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
meet NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
lost NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
salvage NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
salvage NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.75 NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
0.50-0.93 NN O O
, NN O O
n=73 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
remote NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
0.55 NN O O
( NN O O
0.35-0.88 NN O O
, NN O O
n=69 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
with NN O O
median NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
0.10 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.01-0.22 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.0333 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
salvage NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.69 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
0.57 NN O O
( NN O O
0.26 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
0.12 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.01-0.21 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.0333 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n=3 NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n=1 NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n=3 NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Remote NN O I-INT
ischaemic NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
before NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
increases NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
salvage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
favourable NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
merit NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
remote NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Fondation NN O O
Leducq NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20226474)

Cryoprobe NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
yield NN O O
in NN O O
endobronchial NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Forceps NN O O
biopsy NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
specimens NN O O
in NN O O
endoscopically NN O O
visible NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
to NN O O
combine NN O O
forceps NN O O
biopsy NN O O
with NN O O
cytology NN O O
methods NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
yield NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
flexible NN O O
cryoprobe NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
for NN O O
bronchoscopic NN O O
interventions NN O O
in NN O O
malignant NN O O
stenosis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
obtained NN O O
biopsies NN O O
, NN O O
called NN O O
cryobiopsies NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
prospectively NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
yield NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
cryobiopsy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
forceps NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
During NN O O
a NN O O
6-year NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
296 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
visible NN O I-PAR
endoluminal NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O O
unit NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
university NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
consecutively NN O O
conducted NN O O
55 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
techniques NN O O
, NN O O
forceps NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cryobiopsy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
. NN O O

Pathologic NN O O
and NN O O
quantitative NN O O
image NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
obtained NN O O
specimens NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
cryobiopsy NN O I-INT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Comparative NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
conducted NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
55 NN O O
cases NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
cryobiopsy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
forceps NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
89.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
65.5 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

In NN O O
this NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
quantitative NN O O
image NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
biopsies NN O O
regarding NN O O
size NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
artifact-free NN O O
tissue NN O O
sections NN O O
for NN O O
cryobiopsy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
forceps NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cryobiopsy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
89.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Mild NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
case NN O O
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Cryobiopsy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
endobronchial NN O O
tumor NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
method NN O O
also NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
routine NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20509069)

Virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
hypnosis NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pain NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
physical NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Pain NN O O
following NN O O
traumatic NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
common NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
impair NN O O
injury NN O O
recovery NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
inadequately NN O O
treated NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
nonpharmacologic NN O O
analgesic NN O O
techniques NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
report NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
hypnosis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VRH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-hypnotic NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
and NN O O
analgesic NN O O
suggestion NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
customized NN O O
virtual NN O O
reality NN O O
( NN O O
VR NN O O
) NN O O
hardware/software NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
immediately NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
VRH NN O O
( NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
analgesic NN O O
care NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
VR NN O O
without NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

VRH NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
unpleasantness NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
VRH NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
technology NN O O
worthy NN O O
of NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
hypnotic NN O O
analgesia NN O O
to NN O O
populations NN O O
without NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
therapist-provided NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
and NN O O
suggestion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20560622)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
diets NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
Maillard NN O I-INT
reaction NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
on NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Assays NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
in NN O O
Caco-2 NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
Maillard NN O I-INT
reaction NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MRP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
availability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
across NN O O
Caco-2 NN O O
cell NN O O
monolayers NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
week NN O O
randomized NN O O
two-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
consumed NN O O
two NN O O
diets NN O O
, NN O O
named NN O O
white NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
brown NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
poor NN O O
and NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
MRP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
3 NN O O
day NN O O
balance NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and 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
. NN O O

Calcium NN O I-OUT
solubility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
across NN O I-OUT
Caco-2 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
digestion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diets NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
assay NN O O
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
solubility NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
digestion NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
transport NN O O
across NN O O
Caco-2 NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
accordance NN O O
, NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
vary NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
diets NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
WD NN O O
= NN O O
40.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.1 NN O O
, NN O O
% NN O O
BD NN O O
= NN O O
38.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unaltered NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
deoxypyridinoline NN O I-OUT
values NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
BD NN O O
( NN O O
13.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
18.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
nM/Mm NN O O
Cr NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
efficient NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
calcium NN O O
acquired NN O O
during NN O O
adolescence NN O O
is NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
maximize NN O O
peak NN O O
bone NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
, NN O O
possible NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
excessive NN O O
MRP NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
during NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
warrant NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20618920)

Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hygienic-dietary NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
as NN O O
enhancers NN O O
of NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
study NN O O
protocol 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

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
recent NN O O
years NN O O
some NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
light NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
sleep NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
Mediterranean NN O O
diet NN O O
pattern NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
or NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
no NN O O
studies NN O O
using NN O O
all NN O O
these NN O O
measures NN O O
together NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
arm-parallel NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
antidepressant NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
advised NN O O
to NN O O
follow NN O O
four NN O O
additional NN O O
hygienic-dietary NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
about NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
sunlight NN O O
exposure NN O O
and NN O O
sleep NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
month NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
We NN O O
expect NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
recommendations NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
experience NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

If NN O O
so NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
great NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
doctors NN O O
who NN O O
might NN O O
systematically NN O O
recommend NN O O
these NN O O
simple NN O O
and NN O O
costless NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
especially 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
ISRCTN59506583 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2066441)

Therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
tetracycline-immobilized NN O I-INT
collagen NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
root NN O I-INT
planing NN O I-INT
in NN O O
periodontal NN O I-PAR
furcation NN O I-PAR
pockets NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

46 NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
furcation NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
selected NN O O
from NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
periodontal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
groups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
4 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
administrations NN O O
of NN O O
tetracycline-immobilized NN O I-INT
cross-linked NN O I-INT
collagen NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TC NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
TC NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
1 NN O O
root NN O I-INT
planing NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
TC NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
RP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
both NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
microbiologically NN O O
. NN O O

Records NN O O
of NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
index 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
, NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microscopic NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
marked NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
probing NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
micro-organisms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
RP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
TC NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
RP NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TC NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
RP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
pocket NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
probing NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
above NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
root NN O O
planning NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
furcation NN O O
involvement NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
TC NN O I-INT
films NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20739054)

Eltrombopag NN O I-INT
for NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
immune NN O I-PAR
thrombocytopenia NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
RAISE NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Eltrombopag NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
thrombopoietin NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
immune NN O I-PAR
thrombocytopenia NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
undertook NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
3 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
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
immune NN O I-PAR
thrombocytopenia NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
platelet NN O I-PAR
counts NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
30,000 NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
?L NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
plus NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
or NN O O
matching NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
centrally NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
randomisation NN O O
schedule NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
baseline NN O O
platelet NN O O
count NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
15,000 NN O O
per NN O O
?L NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
immune NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
splenectomy NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
, NN O O
investigators NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
assessing NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
allocation NN O O
. NN O O

Dose NN O O
modifications NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
50,000-400,000 NN O O
per NN O O
?L NN O O
) NN O O
weekly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
once NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
thereafter 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
odds NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. 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

This 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
NCT00370331 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
Nov NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
197 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
135 NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
, NN O O
62 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

106 NN O O
( NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
group NN O O
responded NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
once NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
17 NN O O
( NN O O
28 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

The NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
responding NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
group 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 I-INT
group NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
8?2 NN O O
, NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3?59-18?73 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

37 NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
concomitant NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
ten NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=0?016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

24 NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
needed NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=0?001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
had NN O O
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Nine NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
eltrombopag-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
3 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
had NN O O
mild NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
alanine NN O I-OUT
aminotransferase NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
eltrombopag-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
vs NN O O
none NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O O
had NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Four NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
had NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patient NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Eltrombopag NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
immune NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
particularly NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
splenectomy NN O O
or NN O O
previous NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
benefits NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
balanced NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
risks NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
eltrombopag NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
GlaxoSmithKline NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20804366)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
aim NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
in 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 O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
single-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

These NN O O
children NN O O
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
with NN O O
tongue NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
sessions NN O O
over NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks 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
sham NN O I-INT
tongue NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
to NN O O
nonacupoints NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tongue NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
assessed NN O O
measures NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
so NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment 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
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
eye-hand NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
practical NN O I-OUT
reasoning NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Griffiths NN O I-OUT
Mental NN O I-OUT
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
sensory-motor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
affectual NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Ritvo-Freeman NN O I-OUT
Real NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Comprehension NN O I-OUT
Language NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Reynell NN O I-OUT
Language NN O I-OUT
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Mental NN O I-OUT
Age NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Symbolic NN O I-OUT
Play NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
only NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
self-care NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O I-OUT
Independence NN O I-OUT
Measure NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
had NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
had NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
various NN O O
developmental NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O O
gain NN O O
needs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2088233)

The NN O O
immediate NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
localized NN O I-PAR
juvenile NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. 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
on NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microbiological NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
medication NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
juvenile NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
of NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
depths 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
suppuration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
periodontal NN O O
sites NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
without NN O O
radiographic NN O O
attachment NN O O
loss NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Subgingival NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
with NN O O
curettes NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

Spirochaetes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
searched NN O O
for NN O O
by NN O O
dark-field NN O I-OUT
microscopy NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Actinobacillus NN O O
actinomycetemcomitans NN O O
, NN O O
pigmented NN O O
and NN O O
non-pigmented NN O O
Bacteroides NN O O
spp. NN O O
, NN O O
Capnocytophaga NN O O
, NN O O
Fusobacterium NN O O
and NN O O
Actinomyces NN O O
spp NN O O
. NN O O

were NN O O
cultured NN O O
on NN O O
various NN O O
selective NN O O
and NN O O
non-selective NN O O
media NN O O
. NN O O

Bacterial NN O O
species NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
comprising NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cultivable NN O O
flora NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
microbiological NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
beyond NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
mechanical NN O O
debridement NN O O
alone NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
systemic NN O O
medication NN O O
with NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
juvenile NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20943715)

Visual NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
kinesthetic NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
integrated NN O O
with NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
rhythm NN O I-INT
for NN O O
walking NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
kinesthetic NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
incorporating NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
rhythm NN O I-INT
into NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Laboratory NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
Physical NN O O
Therapy NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
hemiparesis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Four NN O O
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
trainings NN O I-INT
on NN O O
walking NN O O
performance NN O O
: NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O O
kinesthetic NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
rhythm NN O I-INT
and NN O O
kinesthetic NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
rhythm NN O I-INT
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
timed NN O I-OUT
up-and-go NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electromyographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kinematic NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
affected NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
one NN O O
gait NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
, 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
timed NN O I-OUT
up-and-go NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25.69 NN O O
? NN O O
16.16 NN O O
to NN O O
23.97 NN O O
? NN O O
14.30 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
kinesthetic NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
rhythm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
22.68 NN O O
? NN O O
12.35 NN O O
to NN O O
15.77 NN O O
? NN O O
8.58 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

During NN O O
the NN O O
swing NN O O
and NN O O
stance NN O O
phases NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
kinesthetic NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
exhibited NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
activation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
muscles NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
angular NN O I-OUT
displacement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
joints NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
prominent NN O O
when NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
rhythm NN O I-INT
was NN O O
integrated NN O O
into NN O O
each NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hamstring NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
swing NN O O
phase NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
gastrocnemius NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
stance NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
kinematic NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
joint NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
posttest NN O O
values NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
kinesthetic NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
rhythm 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
enhanced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
kinesthetic NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
rhythm NN O I-INT
together NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
locomotor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
hemiparesis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21029638)

[ NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
paliperidone NN O I-INT
extended-release NN O O
tablets NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
schizophrenics NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
paliperidone NN O I-INT
extended-release NN O O
tablets NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
schizophrenics NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
81 NN O I-PAR
schizophrenics NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
paliperidone NN O I-INT
extended-release NN O O
tablets NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
schedule NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SDSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
emergent NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TESS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
factors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
12.0 NN O O
? NN O O
2.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
12.1 NN O O
? NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
26.2 NN O O
? NN O O
5.0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
50.2 NN O O
? NN O O
8.7 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
24.7 NN O O
? NN O O
5.3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
23.8 NN O O
? NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
45.0 NN O O
? NN O O
2.9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
93.5 NN O O
? NN O O
6.8 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
9.60-16.78 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
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
12.0 NN O O
? NN O O
2.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
12.1 NN O O
? NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
50.2 NN O O
? NN O O
8.7 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
were NN O O
all 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
6 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
14.2 NN O O
? NN O O
1.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
14.6 NN O O
? NN O O
2.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
56.5 NN O O
? NN O O
6.4 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
2.58-4.26 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
12 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
factors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
12.0 NN O O
? NN O O
2.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
12.1 NN O O
? NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
26.2 NN O O
? NN O O
5.0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
50.2 NN O O
? NN O O
8.7 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
16.9 NN O O
? NN O O
4.9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
18.7 NN O O
? NN O O
5.3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
32.5 NN O O
? NN O O
5.1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
68.1 NN O O
? NN O O
13.0 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
-4.28 NN O O
-- NN O O
5.67 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
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SDSS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
5.93 NN O O
? NN O O
2.78 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
13.9 NN O O
? NN O O
3.4 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
10.83 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
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SDSS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
5.9 NN O O
? NN O O
2.8 NN O O
) 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
6 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
7.6 NN O O
? NN O O
2.9 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
5.21 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
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
1.88 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
12 NN O O
( NN O O
th NN O O
) NN O O
weekend NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SDSS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5.9 NN O O
? NN O O
2.8 NN O O
) 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
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
8.8 NN O O
? NN O O
2.9 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
-4.49 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
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Paliperidone NN O I-INT
extended-release NN O O
tablets NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
schizophrenics NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21106663)

Time-varying NN O O
smoking NN O O
abstinence NN O O
predicts NN O O
lower NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
question NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
abstinence NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
planned NN O O
quit NN O O
attempt NN O O
exacerbates NN O O
or NN O O
improves NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
clinical NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O

Extant NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
primarily NN O O
modeled NN O O
between-person NN O O
covariation NN O O
between NN O O
postquit NN O O
abstinence NN O O
and NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptom NN O O
trajectories NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
potential NN O O
third NN O O
variables NN O O
between NN O O
participants NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
affect NN O O
both NN O O
smoking NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
within-person NN O O
covariation NN O O
between NN O O
time-varying NN O O
abstinence NN O O
and NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
multilevel NN O O
model NN O O
( NN O O
MLM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
allowed NN O O
for NN O O
transitions NN O O
between NN O O
smoking NN O O
statuses NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
participant NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
236 NN O I-PAR
heavy NN O I-PAR
drinking NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
testing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
incorporating NN O O
brief NN O O
alcohol NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
into NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
biochemically NN O I-OUT
verified NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
quit NN O O
date NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
MLMs NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
inverse NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
time-varying NN O O
abstinence NN O O
( NN O O
vs. NN O O
smoking NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
concurrent NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
transitions NN O O
from NN O O
smoking NN O O
to NN O O
abstinence NN O O
within NN O O
individuals NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
planned NN O O
quit NN O O
attempt NN O O
, NN O O
being NN O O
abstinent NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
particular NN O O
week NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
concordant NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
view NN O O
that NN O O
intentional NN O O
smoking NN O O
abstinence NN O O
exacerbates NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Efforts NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
should NN O O
highlight NN O O
that NN O O
individuals NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
feel NN O O
more NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
less NN O O
psychologically NN O O
healthy NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
successfully NN O O
quit NN O O
smoking NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21170734)

Serum NN O O
biochemical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
Beluga NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Huso NN O I-PAR
huso NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
L. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
blood NN O O
sampling NN O O
after NN O O
clove NN O O
powder NN O O
solution NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
Beluga NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Huso NN O I-PAR
huso NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
L. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
blood-sampled NN O O
immediately NN O O
without NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
following NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
procedure NN O O
: NN O O
40 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
240 NN O O
s NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
3,000 NN O O
, NN O O
700 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
l?? NN O O
clove NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
after NN O O
these NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
fish NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
immobile NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
stage NN O O
4 NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
700 NN O O
and NN O O
500 NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
3,000 NN O O
mg NN O O
l?? NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
l?? NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Lactate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differed NN O O
between NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
3,000 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
700 NN O O
mg NN O O
l?? 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
differences NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
dehydrogenase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aspartate NN O I-OUT
aminotransferase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
aminotransferase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Na? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Cl? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
K? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Ca?? NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
rapid NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
slow NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
blood NN O O
sampling NN O O
in NN O O
Beluga NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21211686)

Lowering NN O O
the NN O O
triglyceride/high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
insights NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
PERISCOPE NN O O
( NN O O
Pioglitazone NN O O
Effect NN O O
on NN O O
Regression NN O O
of NN O O
Intravascular NN O O
Sonographic NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Obstruction NN O O
Prospective NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
) NN O O
study 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
determine NN O O
the NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
favorable NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
atheroma NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
mellitus NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
accelerated NN O O
coronary NN O O
atheroma NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

Pioglitazone NN O I-INT
slowed NN O O
progression NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
glimepiride NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
360 NN O I-PAR
diabetic 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
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
for NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PERISCOPE NN O O
( NN O O
Pioglitazone NN O O
Effect NN O O
on NN O O
Regression NN O O
of NN O O
Intravascular NN O O
Sonographic NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Obstruction NN O O
Prospective NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Coronary NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
serial NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Pioglitazone-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
greater NN O O
increases NN O O
in 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
and NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
glycated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.15 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
triglyceride/HDL-C NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.16 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
glycated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.16 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and 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
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.15 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.16 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
A-I NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.20 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Substantial NN O O
atheroma NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
relative NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.8 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
relative NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-13.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
-1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
triglyceride/HDL-C NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-22.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
-9.9 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
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
glycated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
-0.3 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

Multivariable NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
pioglitazone-induced NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
triglyceride/HDL-C NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
volume 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
total NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
volume 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Favorable NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
triglyceride/HDL-C NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
delayed NN O O
atheroma NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
highlights NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
targeting NN O O
atherogenic NN O O
dyslipidemia NN O O
in NN O O
diabetic 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
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21393467)

Distinct NN O O
fast NN O O
and NN O O
slow NN O O
processes NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
preferred NN O O
step NN O O
frequency NN O O
during NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
walking NN O O
. NN O O

Humans NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
select NN O O
a NN O O
step NN O O
frequency NN O O
that NN O O
minimizes NN O O
the NN O O
energy NN O O
expenditure NN O O
of NN O O
walking NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
selection NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
embedded NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
circuits NN O O
that NN O O
generate NN O O
gait NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
is NN O O
pre-programmed NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
given NN O O
walking NN O O
speed NN O O
. NN O O

Or NN O O
perhaps NN O O
step NN O O
frequency NN O O
is NN O O
directly NN O O
optimized NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
sensed NN O O
feedback NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
expenditure NN O O
. NN O O

Direct NN O O
optimization NN O O
is NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
slow NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
compounded NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
delays NN O O
and NN O O
iteration NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
a NN O O
pre-programmed NN O O
mechanism NN O O
presumably NN O O
allows NN O O
for NN O O
faster NN O O
step NN O O
frequency NN O O
selection NN O O
, NN O O
albeit NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
prior NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
pre-programmed NN O O
selection NN O O
and NN O O
direct NN O O
optimization NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
applied NN O O
perturbations NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
to NN O O
elicit NN O O
transient NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
step NN O O
frequency NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
step NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
adjustments NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
components NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dominating NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
66 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
amplitude NN O O
change NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
occurring NN O O
quite NN O O
quickly NN O O
( NN O O
1.44 NN O O
? NN O O
1.14 NN O O
s NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
change NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
component NN O O
was NN O O
of NN O O
smaller NN O O
amplitude NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
35 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
change NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
took NN O O
tens NN O O
of NN O O
seconds NN O O
( NN O O
27.56 NN O O
? NN O O
16.18 NN O O
s NN O O
for NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
completion NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fast NN O O
process NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
too NN O O
fast NN O O
for NN O O
direct NN O O
optimization NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pre-programmed NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
also NN O O
persisted NN O O
even NN O O
with NN O O
unusual NN O O
closed-loop NN O O
perturbations NN O O
that NN O O
conflicted NN O O
with NN O O
prior NN O O
experience NN O O
and NN O O
rendered NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
energetically NN O O
suboptimal NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
slow NN O O
process NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
expected NN O O
for NN O O
direct NN O O
optimization NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
rely NN O O
heavily NN O O
on NN O O
pre-programmed NN O O
gaits NN O O
to NN O O
rapidly NN O O
select NN O O
their NN O O
preferred NN O O
step NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
gradually NN O O
fine-tune NN O O
that NN O O
selection NN O O
with NN O O
direct NN O O
optimization NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21491990)

A NN O O
novel NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
subgingival NN O O
controlled-release NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
delivery NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
microbiologic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serologic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CHX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
chips NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
subgingival NN O O
controlled-release NN O O
delivery NN O O
device NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
scaling NN O O
and NN O O
root NN O O
planing NN O O
( NN O O
SRP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
?12 NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
probing NN O I-PAR
depth NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
?5 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
probing NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
test NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
, NN O O
CHX NN O I-INT
chips NN O I-INT
( NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
chips NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
pockets NN O O
with NN O O
PD NN O O
?5 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
days NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
SRP NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
teeth NN O O
with NN O O
PD NN O O
?4 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
appointment NN O O
. NN O O

Immediately NN O O
after NN O O
SRP NN O O
, NN O O
new NN O O
chips NN O O
were NN O O
inserted NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
pockets NN O O
with NN O O
PD NN O O
?5 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

Parameters NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
; NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
SRP NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Subgingival NN O O
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
; NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
SRP NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Periodontal NN O O
pathogens NN O I-OUT
Aggregatibacter NN O I-OUT
actinomycetemcomitans NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Porphyromonas NN O I-OUT
gingivalis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Prevotella NN O I-OUT
intermedia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Tannerella NN O I-OUT
forsythia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Treponema NN O I-OUT
denticola NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
sensitive NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipopolysaccharide-binding NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
between NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
by NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O I-OUT
U NN O I-OUT
test 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

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
serologic NN O O
parameters NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CAL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
gain NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
1.17 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
0.79 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group 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
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
CHX NN O I-INT
chips NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
microorganisms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
month 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
use NN O O
of NN O O
CHX NN O I-INT
chips NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
SRP NN O O
improved NN O O
CAL NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
subgingival NN O I-OUT
microorganisms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
periodontitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21669557)

Intervention NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
household NN O O
wood NN O O
smoke NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
Guatemala NN O O
reduces NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
electrocardiograms NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
large NN O O
body NN O O
of NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
fine NN O O
particulate NN O O
matter NN O O
( NN O O
PM NN O O
) NN O O
air NN O O
pollution NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
indoor NN O O
air NN O O
pollution NN O O
from NN O O
household NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
solid NN O O
fuels NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

RESPIRE NN O O
( NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Exposure NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Pollution NN O O
Indoors NN O O
and NN O O
Respiratory NN O O
Effects NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
chimney NN O I-INT
woodstove NN O I-INT
that NN O O
reduces NN O O
wood NN O O
smoke NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
stove NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
open NN O I-INT
fire NN O I-INT
use NN O O
, NN O O
would NN O O
reduce NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increase NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
two NN O O
complementary NN O O
study NN O O
designs NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
between-groups NN O O
comparisons NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
randomized NN O O
stove NN O I-INT
assignment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
before-and-after NN O O
comparisons NN O O
within NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
used NN O O
open NN O I-INT
fires NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
chimney NN O I-INT
stoves NN O I-INT
after NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Electrocardiogram NN O O
sessions NN O O
that NN O O
lasted NN O O
20 NN O O
hr NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
among NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
38-84 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
after NN O O
receiving NN O O
stoves NN O I-INT
. NN O O

HRV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
30-min NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

ST-segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
value NN O O
below NN O O
-1.00 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

Personal NN O I-OUT
fine NN O I-OUT
PM NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
aerodynamic NN O O
diameter NN O O
? NN O O
2.5 NN O O
?m NN O O
( NN O O
PM?.? NN O O
] NN O I-OUT
exposures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hr NN O O
before NN O O
each NN O O
electrocardiogram NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
PM?.? NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
means NN O O
were NN O O
266 NN O O
and NN O O
102 NN O O
?g/m? NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
stove 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
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
0.26 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.08-0.90 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
similar NN O O
associations NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
before-and-after NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
HRV NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
stove NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
household NN O O
wood NN O O
smoke NN O O
exposures NN O O
affect NN O O
ventricular NN O O
repolarization NN O O
and NN O O
potentially NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
health NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21718094)

Insulin NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
started NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
: NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
pancreatic NN O I-OUT
?-cell NN O I-OUT
function 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 O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
interest NN O O
of NN O O
preserving NN O O
residual NN O O
insulin NN O O
secretory NN O O
capacity NN O O
present 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
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T1D NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
starting NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
multiple NN O O
daily NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
( NN O O
MDIs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS 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
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
MDI NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
pump NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
) NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
T1D NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and 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
months NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
T1D NN O O
. NN O O

Preservation NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
mixed-meal-stimulated NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
compared 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
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
glycosylated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
continuous NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
sensor NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
therapy NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
compared NN O O
at NN O O
multiple NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Initiation NN O O
of NN O O
pump NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
within NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
consistently NN O O
higher NN O O
mixed-meal NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
test-stimulated NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
although 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

Nonetheless NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
pump-treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
more NN O O
time NN O O
spent NN O O
with NN O O
normoglycemia NN O O
, NN O O
better NN O O
mean NN O O
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pump-treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
reported NN O O
comparatively NN O O
greater NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Initiation NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
improved NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
contributed NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
also NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
earlier NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
pump NN O O
therapy NN O O
might NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
preserve NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
?-cell NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
this NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21866656)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
endometriosis-related NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
quyu NN O I-INT
jiedu NN O I-INT
recipe NN O I-INT
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
Quyu NN O I-INT
Jiedu NN O I-INT
Recipe NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QYJDR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EMs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-related NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
130 NN O I-PAR
EMs-related NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
stasis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
toxin NN O I-PAR
accumulation NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
surgery 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
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
75 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
55 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
routine NN O O
progesterone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

QYJDR NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
lasting NN O O
for NN O O
twelve NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
surgery NN O O
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

The NN O O
Chinese NN O I-OUT
medicine NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
integrals NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
endometrium NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EMAb NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
125 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CA125 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
before NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test 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
61.33 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
46/75 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
45.45 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
25/55 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
showing 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

The NN O O
Chinese NN O I-OUT
medicine NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
integral NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
( NN O O
16.07 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.77 NN O O
) NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
7.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.27 NN O O
) NN O O
score NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
( NN O O
15.92 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.51 NN O O
) NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
12.73 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.12 NN O O
) NN O O
score 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
Chinese NN O I-OUT
medicine NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
integral NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
before NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Besides NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
integral NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test 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
( NN O O
9.12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.16 NN O O
) NN O O
score NN O O
vs NN O O
( NN O O
3.48 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.06 NN O O
) NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
] 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
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
three-month NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
EMAb NN O I-OUT
negative NN O O
conversion NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
obviously NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test 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
44.44 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
15.62 NN O O
% NN O O
) 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
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
CA125 NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
( NN O O
31.88 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.78 NN O O
) NN O O
U/mL NN O O
before NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
18.82 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.08 NN O O
) NN O O
U/mL NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
( NN O O
30.63 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.28 NN O O
) NN O O
U/mL NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
18.05 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.20 NN O O
) NN O O
U/mL NN O O
respectively NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
lowered NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
with 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

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
after NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy 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
The NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
QYJDR NN O I-INT
could NN O O
effectively NN O O
improve NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
EMs NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
stasis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
toxin NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
promote NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EMAb NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
lower NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
CA125 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
elevate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

QYJDR NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
formula NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
EMs-related NN O O
infertility NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2188766)

Chronic NN O O
vasodilator NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
flosequinan NN O I-INT
in NN O O
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
flosequinan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
arterial NN O O
and NN O O
venous NN O O
dilator NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
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
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Seventeen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
digitalis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diuretic NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
flosequinan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 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
8 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
serially NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
two-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
classification NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
flosequinan-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Flosequinan NN O I-INT
evoked NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

While NN O O
long-term NN O O
flosequinan NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
also NN O O
effected NN O O
a NN O O
progressive NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
consistently NN O O
improve NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
vasodilator NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
flosequinan NN O I-INT
to NN O O
standard NN O O
digitalis-diuretic NN O O
regimens NN O O
is NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
inducing NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
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
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Trials NN O O
involving NN O O
larger NN O O
patient NN O O
populations NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
subpopulations NN O O
benefited NN O O
, NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
therapeutics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
so NN O O
forth NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21896676)

A NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
service NN O I-INT
to NN O O
an NN O O
emergency NN O O
extended NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
decrease NN O O
admission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reasons NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
services NN O O
are NN O O
provided NN O O
to NN O O
emergency NN O O
departments NN O O
( NN O O
EDs NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
emergency NN O O
extended NN O O
care NN O O
units NN O O
( NN O O
EECUs NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
review NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
mobility NN O O
to NN O O
ensure NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
safe NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
discharged NN O O
home NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
service NN O I-INT
to NN O O
an NN O O
EECU NN O O
altered NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
re-presentation NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ED NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
community NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
practitioners NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
usual NN O I-OUT
work/home/leisure NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
concealed NN O O
allocation NN O O
, NN O O
assessor NN O O
blinding NN O O
and NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
EECU NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sample NN O O
comprised NN O O
186 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
123 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
assessment/intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Referral NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
EECU NN O O
admission NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
received NN O O
medical/nursing NN O O
care NN O O
as NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
assessment/intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-18 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-6 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
re-presentation NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ED NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
non-significant NN O O
( NN O O
p?0.45 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
community NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
resources NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
usual NN O I-OUT
work/home/leisure NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
EECU NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
service NN O I-INT
for NN O O
EECU NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
provided NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
re-presentation NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ED NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
community NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
resources NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
usual NN O I-OUT
work/home/leisure NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Trial NN O O
registration NN O O
number NN O O
ANZCTRN12609000106235 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21914768)

Cancer NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
: NN O O
applying NN O O
the NN O O
extended NN O O
parallel NN O O
process NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
concern NN O O
that NN O O
public NN O O
education NN O O
about NN O O
testicular NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
TC NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
unnecessary NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O

Psychological NN O O
theory NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
if NN O O
threat NN O O
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
TC NN O O
) NN O O
information NN O O
is NN O O
accompanied NN O O
with NN O O
threat NN O O
control NN O O
strategies NN O O
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
testicular NN O I-INT
self-examination NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
TSE NN O O
) NN O O
anxiety NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
. NN O O

Male NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=443 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
TC NN O I-INT
or NN O O
TC NN O I-INT
+TSE NN O I-INT
information NN O O
group NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
no NN O O
information NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and 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

Anxiety NN O I-OUT
levels 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
and NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
TC+TSE NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
greater NN O O
perceived NN O I-OUT
message NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increased NN O O
intention NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
self-examine NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lower NN O O
message NN O I-OUT
denigration NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
TC NN O I-INT
information NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
anxiogenic NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
TSE NN O O
information NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
acceptance NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
awareness NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21924760)

Quality NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
INR NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
and NN O O
bleeding NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
nested NN O O
case NN O O
control NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ACTIVE NN O O
W NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
international NN O O
normalized NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
INR NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
accepted NN O O
quality NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
control NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
populations NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
usefulness NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
stroke NN O O
and NN O O
bleeding NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
nested NN O O
case NN O O
control NN O O
analysis NN O O
among NN O O
ACTIVE NN O I-PAR
W NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
separately NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Several NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
quality NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
time-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
234 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
matched NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
4:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
122 NN O O
and NN O O
865 NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
duration NN O O
was NN O O
257?154days NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
stroke NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
222?146days NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
bleeding NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
respective NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
mean NN O O
TTR NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
stroke NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
53.9 NN O O
% NN O O
?25.1 NN O O
vs NN O O
63.4 NN O O
% NN O O
?24.8 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.055 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
bleeding NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
56.2 NN O O
% NN O O
?25.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
63.4 NN O O
% NN O O
?26.8 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
below NN O O
range NN O O
for NN O O
stroke NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
above NN O O
range NN O O
for NN O O
bleeding NN O O
were NN O O
only NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
month NN O O
leading NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
event NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Rather NN O O
, NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
bleeding NN O O
cases NN O O
spent NN O O
more NN O O
time NN O O
below NN O O
range NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
26.8 NN O O
% NN O O
?25.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
20.8 NN O O
% NN O O
?24.0 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
TTR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
individual NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
stroke NN O O
or NN O O
bleeding NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
matched NN O O
controls NN O O
in NN O O
ACTIVE NN O O
W. NN O O
Maintaining NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
TTR NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
equal NN O O
importance NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
INRs NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
relevant NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
patient NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
stroke NN O O
and NN O O
bleeding NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21975269)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
and NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
transmission NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Hormonal NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
are NN O O
used NN O O
widely NN O O
but NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
risk NN O O
are NN O O
unclear 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
association NN O O
between NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
use NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
acquisition NN O O
by NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
transmission NN O O
from NN O O
HIV-1-infected NN O O
women NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
male NN O O
partners NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
3790 NN O I-PAR
heterosexual NN O I-PAR
HIV-1-serodiscordant NN O I-PAR
couples NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
longitudinal NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
incidence NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Among NN O O
injectable NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
users NN O O
and NN O O
non-users NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
acquisition NN O O
by NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
transmission NN O O
from NN O O
women NN O O
to NN O O
men 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
HIV-1 NN O O
seroconversion NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
regression NN O O
and NN O O
marginal NN O O
structural NN O O
modelling NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
use NN O O
on NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Among NN O O
1314 NN O I-PAR
couples NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
HIV-1-seronegative NN O I-PAR
partner NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
18?0 NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
12?6-24?2 NN O O
] NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
6?61 NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
person-years NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
used NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraception NN O I-INT
and NN O O
3?78 NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
person-years NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1?98 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1?06-3?68 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0?03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
2476 NN O O
couples NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
HIV-1-seronegative NN O I-PAR
partner NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
18?7 NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
12?8-24?2 NN O O
] NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
women NN O O
to NN O O
men NN O O
were NN O O
2?61 NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
person-years NN O O
in NN O O
couples NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
women NN O O
used NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraception NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1?51 NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
person-years NN O O
in NN O O
couples NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
women NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
use NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraception NN O I-INT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1?97 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1?12-3?45 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0?02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Marginal NN O O
structural NN O O
model NN O O
analyses NN O O
generated NN O O
much NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
regression NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Women NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
counselled NN O O
about NN O O
potentially NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraception NN O I-INT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
injectable NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
dual NN O O
protection NN O O
with NN O O
condoms NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Non-hormonal NN O O
or NN O O
low-dose NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
methods NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
at-risk NN O O
for NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
US NN O O
National NN O O
Institutes NN O O
of NN O O
Health NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Bill NN O O
& NN O O
Melinda NN O O
Gates NN O O
Foundation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21982657)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
skeletal NN O I-INT
myoblast NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
by NN O O
catheter NN O O
delivery 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
after NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
preliminary NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
transcatheter NN O O
intramyocardial NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
myoblasts NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with 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 O

METHODS NN O O
MARVEL NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
image-guided NN O O
, NN O O
catheter-based NN O O
intramyocardial NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
myoblasts NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
or NN O O
800 NN O O
million NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
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
safety NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Minnesota NN O I-OUT
Living NN O I-OUT
With NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
330 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
intended NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MARVEL-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
stopping NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
financial NN O I-PAR
reasons NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
similar NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
events NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
deaths NN O O
. NN O O

Ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
responsive NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
amiodarone NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
myoblast-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
myoblast-treated NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
?6-minute NN O O
walk NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
-3.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
+95.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
+85.5 NN O O
m NN O O
[ NN O O
placebo NN O O
vs NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
vs NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.50 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
Minnesota NN O I-OUT
Living NN O I-OUT
With NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
HF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
postinfarction NN O I-PAR
cardiomyopathy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
transcatheter NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
myoblasts NN O I-INT
in NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
to NN O O
800 NN O O
million NN O O
cells NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
important NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

Ventricular NN O O
tachycardia NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
provoked NN O O
by NN O O
myoblast NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
but NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
transient NN O O
and NN O O
treatable NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
large-scale NN O O
outcome NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
myoblast NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
postinfarction NN O I-PAR
cardiomyopathy NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22154769)

Safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
zoster NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
?60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Incidence NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
herpes NN O O
zoster NN O O
( NN O O
HZ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
postherpetic NN O O
neuralgia NN O O
increase NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
age-related NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
immunity NN O O
to NN O O
varicella-zoster NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
VZV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
zoster NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ZV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
substantial NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
HZ NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ZV NN O I-INT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
210 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
?60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
immunity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ZV NN O I-INT
, NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Immunogenicity NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
VZV NN O I-OUT
interferon-gamma NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IFN-? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
enzyme-linked NN O I-OUT
immunospot NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ELISPOT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VZV NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein NN O I-OUT
enzyme-linked NN O I-OUT
immunosorbent NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
gpELISA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
experiences NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
Vaccination NN O O
Report NN O O
Card NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
serious NN O O
vaccine-related NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

VZV NN O I-OUT
IFN-? NN O O
ELISPOT NN O I-OUT
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GMC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spot-forming NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ZV NN O I-INT
group NN O O
from NN O O
16.9 NN O O
prevaccination NN O O
to NN O O
49.5 NN O O
and NN O O
32.8 NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postdose NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
postdose NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
GMC NN O O
was NN O O
44.3 NN O O
, NN O O
42.9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
36.5 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

GMC NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
peak NN O O
ELISPOT NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
?2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
ZV NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
gpELISA NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GMTs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ZV NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
IFN-? NN O I-OUT
ELISPOT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gpELISA NN O I-OUT
assays NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
poor NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
ZV NN O I-INT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenic NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
?60 NN O O
years NN O O
old NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
second NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ZV NN O I-INT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
boost NN O O
VZV-specific NN O O
immunity NN O I-OUT
beyond NN O O
levels NN O O
achieved NN O O
postdose NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2223363)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
changing NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Propofol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
300 NN O O
, NN O O
600 NN O O
or NN O O
1200 NN O O
ml NN O O
h-1 NN O O
until NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
consciousness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
as NN O O
judged NN O O
by NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
been NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer 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
with NN O O
the NN O O
slower NN O O
infusion NN O O
rates NN O O
( NN O O
104 NN O O
, NN O O
68 NN O O
and NN O O
51 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less 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
these NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
1.2 NN O O
, NN O O
1.6 NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
300-ml NN O O
h-1 NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
induction 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
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
apnoea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
slower NN O O
infusion NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2224060)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
chemoimmunotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
bestatin NN O I-INT
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
nonlymphocytic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
new NN O O
immunomodulating NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
bestatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
INN NN O O
: NN O O
Ubenimex NN O O
has NN O O
low NN O O
toxicity NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
long-term NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
significant NN O O
modifications NN O O
in NN O O
immunological NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
cooperative NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
bestatin NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
remission NN O O
maintenance NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
nonlymphocytic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ANLL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
bestatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/bw NN O O
per NN O O
os NN O O
( NN O O
po NN O O
) NN O O
daily 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

The NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
bestatin NN O I-INT
: NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
bestatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
achieved NN O O
longer NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
longer NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Though NN O O
this NN O O
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bestatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
15-49 NN O O
yr NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
50-65 NN O O
yr NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
. NN O O

Bestatin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
useful NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O O
ANLL NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
prolonged NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
especially NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
few NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22271197)

Goal NN O I-OUT
attainment NN O I-OUT
scaling NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
an NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Goal NN O I-OUT
attainment NN O I-OUT
scaling NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
holds NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
idiographic NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
measuring NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
community NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

GAS NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
criticized NN O O
for NN O O
untested NN O O
assumptions NN O O
of NN O O
scaling NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
interval NN O O
or NN O O
ordinal NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
inter-individual NN O O
equivalence NN O O
and NN O O
comparability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reliability NN O O
of NN O O
coding NN O O
across NN O O
different NN O O
behavioral NN O O
observation NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
tested NN O O
assumptions NN O O
of NN O O
equality NN O O
between NN O O
GAS NN O O
descriptions NN O O
for NN O O
outcome NN O O
measurement NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
measurability NN O O
, NN O O
equidistance NN O O
, NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
difficulty NN O O
, NN O O
comparability NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O O
samples NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
teachers NN O O
vs. NN O O
researchers NN O O
and NN O O
live NN O O
vs. NN O O
videotape NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
GAS NN O O
descriptions NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
equivalency NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
teacher NN O O
collected NN O O
behavior NN O O
samples NN O O
are NN O O
representative NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
varied NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O O
samples NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
reliably NN O O
coded NN O O
. NN O O

GAS NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
measurement NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Recommendations NN O O
are NN O O
provided NN O O
to NN O O
ensure NN O O
methodological NN O O
quality NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22341427)

Intermediate-term NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
single-ventricle NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
shunt NN O O
type NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
death NN O O
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Norwood NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
associations NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
favor NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O O
Blalock-Taussig NN O O
shunt NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
right NN O O
ventricle-to-pulmonary NN O O
artery NN O O
shunt NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
competing NN O O
risks NN O O
methodology NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
death NN O O
without NN O O
transplantation NN O O
, NN O O
cardiac NN O O
transplantation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
without NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

Parametric NN O O
time-to-event NN O O
modeling NN O O
and NN O O
bootstrapping NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Data NN O O
from NN O O
549 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2.7 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
0.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Mortality NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
constant NN O O
phases NN O O
; NN O O
transplant NN O O
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
phase NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
included NN O O
lower NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
status NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
obstructed NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
venous NN O O
return NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
smaller NN O O
ascending NN O O
aorta 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
anatomic NN O O
subtype NN O O
. NN O O

Constant NN O O
phase NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
included NN O O
genetic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
gestational NN O O
age 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
right NN O O
ventricle-to-pulmonary NN O O
artery NN O O
shunt NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
better NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
full NN O O
term NN O O
with NN O O
aortic NN O O
atresia 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
modified NN O O
Blalock-Taussig NN O O
shunt NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
preterm NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
patent NN O O
aortic NN O O
valve NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Lower NN O O
pre-Norwood NN O O
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
fractional NN O O
area NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
pre-Norwood NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
anatomy NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
hypoplastic NN O O
left NN O O
heart NN O O
syndrome NN O O
were NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
transplantation NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
shunt NN O O
type NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.43 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
intermediate-term NN O O
mortality NN O O
include NN O O
lower NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
anatomy NN O O
, NN O O
genetic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
gestational NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Term NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
aortic NN O O
atresia NN O O
benefited NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
right NN O O
ventricle-to-pulmonary NN O O
artery NN O O
shunt NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
preterm NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
patent NN O O
aortic NN O O
valve NN O O
benefited NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
Blalock-Taussig NN O O
shunt NN O O
. NN O O

Right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
anatomy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
shunt NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22416755)

Preschoolers NN O I-PAR
acquire NN O O
general NN O O
knowledge NN O O
by NN O O
sharing NN O O
in NN O O
pretense NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Children NN O O
acquire NN O O
general NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
many NN O O
kinds NN O O
of NN O O
things NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
known NN O O
means NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
this NN O O
knowledge NN O O
is NN O O
acquired NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
acquire NN O O
generic NN O O
knowledge NN O O
by NN O O
sharing NN O O
in NN O O
pretend NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
twenty-two NN O I-PAR
3- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4-year-olds NN O I-PAR
watched NN O O
pretense NN O I-INT
in NN O O
which NN O O
a NN O O
puppet NN O O
represented NN O O
a NN O O
nerp NN O O
( NN O O
an NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
kind NN O O
of NN O O
animal NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
instance NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
scenario NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
nerp NN O O
ate NN O O
and NN O O
disliked NN O O
a NN O O
carrot NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
subsequently NN O O
asked NN O O
generic NN O O
questions NN O O
about NN O O
real NN O O
nerps NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O O
responses NN O I-OUT
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
learned NN O O
general NN O O
facts NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
nerps NN O O
dislike NN O O
carrots NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
thirty-two NN O I-PAR
4- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5-year-olds NN O I-PAR
learned NN O O
from NN O O
scenarios NN O I-INT
lacking NN O I-INT
pretend NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sound NN O I-INT
effects NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
reveal NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
overlooked NN O O
means NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
acquire NN O O
generic NN O O
knowledge NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22420121)

Training NN O O
referential NN O I-INT
communicative NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
to NN O O
individuals 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 O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
referential NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
formally NN O I-PAR
diagnosed 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
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14.3 NN O I-PAR
yr. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
SD NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
4.2 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
role NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
speakers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
acted NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
listeners NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
mainstream NN O O
compulsory NN O O
education NN O O
. NN O O

Inclusion/exclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
or NN O O
associated NN O O
disability NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
referential NN O O
communication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
any NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Speakers 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
trained NN O O
vs NN O O
untrained NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Linguistic NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Peabody NN O I-OUT
Picture NN O I-OUT
Vocabulary NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPVT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Wechsler NN O I-OUT
Intelligence NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WISC-R NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
WAIS-III NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Autistic 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

Communicative NN O I-OUT
abilities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
through NN O O
two NN O O
indexes NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
message NN O O
complexity NN O O
and NN O O
self-regulation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trained NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
trained NN O O
in NN O O
referential NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
( NN O O
task NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
, NN O O
role NN O I-INT
taking NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
task NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
untrained NN O O
group NN O O
took NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
communicative NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
but NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
specific NN O O
communicative NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
complexity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emitted NN O I-OUT
messages NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
improved NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trained NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Ecological NN O O
referential NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
is NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
appropriate NN O O
paradigm NN O O
for NN O O
studying NN O O
the NN O O
communicative NN O O
process NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
products NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
and NN O O
implement NN O O
a NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
those NN O O
skills NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
most NN O O
deficient NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22435114)

Group NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children 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
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
high-functioning NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
developing NN O O
significant NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O

Anxiety NN O O
can NN O O
adversely NN O O
impact NN O O
functioning NN O O
across NN O O
school NN O O
, NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
community NN O O
environments NN O O
. NN O O

Cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
success NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Modified NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
anxiety NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
also NN O O
yielded NN O O
promising NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomizedto NN O O
group NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
treatment-as-usual NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Independent NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluators NN O O
, NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
completed NN O O
structured NN O O
interviews NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Disorders NN O I-OUT
Interview NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O I-OUT
Version NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
ADIS-P NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
markedly NN O O
better NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
by NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
Clinician NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
Ratings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinician NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
positive NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Initial NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
designed NN O O
treatment NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
agroup NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
specifically NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O

Limitations NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
include NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
attention NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
normed NN O O
with NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
children NN O O


-DOCSTART- (22538329)

Spotty NN O O
calcification NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
accelerated NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
: NN O O
insights NN O O
from NN O O
serial NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound 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
determine NN O O
atheroma NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spotty NN O I-PAR
calcification NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
extensively NN O O
calcified NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
lesions NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
quiescent NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
spotty NN O O
calcification NN O O
within NN O O
plaque NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
ischemic NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
spotty NN O O
calcification NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1,347 NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angiographic NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
serial NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
atheroma NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
imaging NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spotty NN O I-PAR
calcification NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
length NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
containing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
arc NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
calcification NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
90? NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disease 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
with NN O O
spotty NN O O
calcification NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
922 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
calcification NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
425 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spotty NN O I-PAR
calcification NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
54 NN O O
years 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
more NN O I-PAR
likely NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
54 NN O O
% NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
mellitus NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
20 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
and NN O O
have NN O O
lower NN O O
on-treatment NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
48 NN O O
? NN O O
16 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
vs. NN O O
51 NN O O
? NN O O
17 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

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
spotty NN O O
calcification NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
36.0 NN O O
? NN O O
7.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
29.0 NN O O
? NN O O
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
174.6 NN O O
? NN O O
71.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
133.9 NN O O
? NN O O
64.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 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

On NN O O
serial NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
spotty NN O O
calcification NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PAV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+0.43 NN O O
? NN O O
0.07 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
+0.02 NN O O
? NN O O
0.11 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
intensive NN O O
low-density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
lowering NN O O
therapy NN O O
slowed NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
efficacies NN O O
were NN O O
attenuated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spotty NN O I-PAR
calcification NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
spotty NN O O
calcification NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
extensive NN O O
and NN O O
diffuse NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
accelerated NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
despite NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22646975)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
guided NN O O
imagery NN O O
with NN O O
relaxation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Inflammatory NN O O
Bowel NN O O
Disease NN O O
( NN O O
IBD NN O O
) NN O O
impacts NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Psychological NN O O
factors NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
targeted NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
chosen NN O O
and NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
waiting-list NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
attended NN O O
three NN O O
relaxation-training NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
and NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
audio NN O O
disc NN O O
for NN O O
home NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluations NN O O
performed NN O O
pre NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
: NN O O
state NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
State-Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
IBD NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analogue NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
symptom NN O O
monitoring NN O O
diary NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
's NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
without NN O O
study-related NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-nine NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
the NN O O
relaxation-training NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
's NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
measured NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
as 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
n NN O O
= NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
time NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
interaction NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
decreased 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
Findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
IBD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
relaxation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
their NN O O
holistic NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

New NN O O
studies NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22744141)

Parent-implemented NN O O
enhanced NN O I-INT
milieu NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
with NN O O
preschool NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. 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
effects NN O O
of NN O O
enhanced NN O I-INT
milieu NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
implemented NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
therapists NN O O
versus NN O O
therapists NN O O
only NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
language NN O O
skills NN O O
of NN O O
preschool NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
and 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
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Seventy-seven 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
2 NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
therapist NN O I-INT
EMT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
therapist-only NN O I-INT
EMT NN O I-INT
) NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
36 NN O O
intervention NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Separate NN O O
linear NN O O
regressions NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
standardized NN O O
and NN O O
observational NN O O
measure NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Parents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O O
+ NN O O
therapist NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
greater NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
EMT NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
home NN O O
than NN O O
untrained NN O O
parents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapist-only NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
for NN O O
observational NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
to NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
1.32 NN O O
favoring NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O O
+ NN O O
therapist NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
found NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Findings NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
generally NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
benefits NN O O
to NN O O
training NN O O
parents NN O O
to NN O O
implement NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
language NN O O
intervention NN O O
strategies NN O O
with NN O O
preschool NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
ID NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
impairments NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22865017)

RESPECT-PTSD NN O O
: NN O O
re-engineering NN O O
systems NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
PTSD NN O I-PAR
, 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
Although NN O O
collaborative NN O O
care NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
mental NN O O
disorders NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
no NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
collaborative NN O O
care NN O O
specifically NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Posttraumatic NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PTSD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
a NN O O
collaborative NN O O
approach NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Three NN O I-INT
Component NN O I-INT
Model NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3CM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
PTSD NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
two-arm NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PTSD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
Veterans NN O I-PAR
Affairs NN O I-PAR
healthcare NN O I-PAR
facilities NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
or NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
3CM NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Blinded NN O O
assessors NN O O
collected NN O O
data NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
3-month NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
195 NN O I-PAR
Veterans NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Their NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Iraq NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Afghanistan NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Vietnam NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
All NN O O
participants NN O O
received NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
3CM NN O I-INT
also NN O O
received NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Care NN O O
managers NN O O
received NN O O
supervision NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
psychiatrist NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
PTSD NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

KEY 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
3CM NN O O
and NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
3CM NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
visit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fill NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
antidepressant NN O I-OUT
prescription NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
adequate NN O I-OUT
antidepressant NN O I-OUT
refills NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

3CM NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
higher NN O O
outpatient NN O I-OUT
pharmacy NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
careful NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
way NN O O
that NN O O
collaborative NN O O
care NN O O
models NN O O
are NN O O
implemented NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
PTSD NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
additional NN O O
supports NN O O
to NN O O
encourage NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
PTSD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22881991)

Teaching NN O O
emotion NN O I-INT
recognition NN O I-INT
skills NN O O
to 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 O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
emotion NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
difficulties NN O O
in NN O O
emotion NN O O
recognition NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
target NN O O
these NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
emotion NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
interventions NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
trialled NN O O
with NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
co-morbid NN O I-PAR
ID NN O I-PAR
. 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
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
emotion NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
ability NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
55 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
aged NN O I-PAR
4-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FSIQ NN O I-PAR
42-107 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Children NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
watched NN O O
a NN O O
DVD NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O O
emotion NN O I-INT
recognition NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
to NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O I-INT
Transporters NN O I-INT
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
watched NN O O
a NN O O
DVD NN O O
of NN O O
Thomas NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Tank NN O I-INT
Engine NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
basic NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mindreading NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
theory NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mind NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TOM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
4-week NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Analyses NN O O
controlled NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
chronological NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
verbal NN O O
intelligence NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
and NN O O
DVD NN O O
viewing NN O O
time NN O O
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
improved NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anger 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
with NN O O
few NN O O
improvements NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
generalisation NN O O
of NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
TOM NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O I-INT
Transporters NN O I-INT
programme NN O O
showed NN O O
limited NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
teaching NN O O
basic NN O O
emotion NN O O
recognition NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O O
ability NN O O
. NN O O

Improvements NN O O
were NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
recognition NN O O
of NN O O
expressions NN O O
of NN O O
anger NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
skills NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
provide NN O O
limited NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Transporters NN O I-INT
programme 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
of NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
cognitive NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22897461)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
fenofibrate NN O I-INT
or NN O O
?-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
subfraction NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
dyslipidaemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Raised NN O O
triglycerides NN O O
( NN O O
TG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
high-density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
( NN O O
HDL-C NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
predominance NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
dense NN O O
low NN O O
density NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
( NN O O
sdLDL NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MetS 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
effect NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
dosing NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
fenofibrate NN O I-INT
or NN O O
?-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
subfraction NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
dyslipidaemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
MetS NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
previously NN O O
randomised NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
low-density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
( NN O O
LDL-C NN O O
) NN O O
> NN O O
160 NN O O
and NN O O
TG NN O O
> NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
to NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
R NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
fenofibrate NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
RF NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
?-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
g/day NN O O
( NN O O
R? NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) 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
only NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MetS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
23 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
R NN O O
, NN O O
RF NN O O
and NN O O
R? NN O O
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
subfraction NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
polyacrylamide NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
gel NN O O
electrophoresis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
prominent NN O O
with NN O O
RF NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
greater NN O O
hypotriglyceridemic NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
R NN O O
and NN O O
R? NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
RF NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
RF NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
raised NN O O
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
by NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
HDL NN O O
particles NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
subclasses NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
R NN O I-INT
and NN O O
R? NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
All NN O O
regimens NN O O
increased NN O O
mean NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
RF NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
differential NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
HDL NN O O
subfraction NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22956006)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
continuing NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
beyond NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
following NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Uncertainty NN O O
remains NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
anti-emetic NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
delayed NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
after NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
patients NN O O
receive NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
but NN O O
complain NN O O
of NN O O
insomnia NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety/agitation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
indigestion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
prefer NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
delayed NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments 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
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
oral NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chemotherapy-na?ve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
intravenous NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
and NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
pre-chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
on NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
cycles NN O O
in NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
27-76 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
79 NN O O
received NN O O
fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
15 NN O O
received NN O O
doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O O
withdrew NN O O
pre-cycle NN O O
2 NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
80 NN O O
patients NN O O
stating NN O O
a NN O O
preference NN O O
, NN O O
31 NN O O
preferred NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
28-50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
37 NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
35-58 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
preferred NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
; NN O O
12 NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
preference 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
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
. NN O O

No NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
symptom/QOL NN O O
domains NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion 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
in NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
after NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23021296)

Adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
lifestyle NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
increasing NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
evidence NN O O
showing NN O O
that NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
sun NN O O
exposure NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
coadjuvant NN O O
treatments NN O O
for 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
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
information NN O O
regarding NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
these NN O O
recommendations NN O O
in NN O O
daily NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
including NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
antidepressant NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

They NN O O
wore NN O O
a NN O O
wrist-watch-like NN O O
actimetry NN O O
sensor NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
note NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
explicitly NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
both NN O O
their NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
these NN O I-INT
explicit NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
recommendations NN O O
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
increased NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
25.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
14.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Depressive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
follow NN O O
prescribed NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
recommendations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23103798)

Role NN O O
of NN O O
posterior NN O I-INT
tibial 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
refractory NN O O
monosymptomatic NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
enuresis NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
urodynamic NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
posterior NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
monosymptomatic NN O I-PAR
nocturnal NN O I-PAR
enuresis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
monosymptomatic NN O I-PAR
nocturnal NN O I-PAR
enuresis NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
2 NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
weekly NN O O
session NN O O
of NN O O
posterior NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
posterior NN O O
tibial NN O O
nerve NN O O
stimulation NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
urodynamic NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

Another NN O O
clinical NN O O
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
followup NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
urodynamic NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
46.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
detrusor NN O I-OUT
overactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
11 NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
78.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
or NN O O
full NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
posterior NN O O
tibial NN O O
nerve NN O O
stimulation NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
14.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wet NN O I-OUT
nights NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
urodynamic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
wet NN O I-OUT
nights NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urodynamic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3-month NN O O
followup NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
or NN O O
full NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
78.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
42.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Posterior NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
viable NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
monosymptomatic NN O I-PAR
nocturnal NN O I-PAR
enuresis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
deterioration NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
responders NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
suggests NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23114870)

Custom-fit NN O O
minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
: NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Recently NN O O
, NN O O
new NN O O
custom-fit NN O O
pin NN O O
guides NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
TKA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
introduced NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
guides NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
operating NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
guides NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
intramedullary NN O O
alignment NN O O
jigs NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
reduced NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
TKA NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
custom-fit NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MRI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-based NN O I-INT
pin NN O I-INT
guides NN O I-INT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. 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
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
intramedullary NN O I-INT
alignment NN O I-INT
jigs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used 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
custom-fit NN O I-INT
MRI-based NN O I-INT
pin NN O I-INT
guides NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
cemented NN O I-INT
posterior-stabilized NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
through NN O O
a NN O O
mini-midvastus NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
drain NN O O
bottles NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
h. NN O O
Hb NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
subtracting NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
Hb NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
Knee NN O I-OUT
Society NN O I-OUT
Scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
KSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
mean NN O O
drainage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
custom-fit NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
391 NN O O
ml NN O O
vs. NN O O
603 NN O O
ml NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 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
estimated NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
g/dl NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.1 NN O O
g/dl NN O O
; NN O O
n.s NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
transfusion NN O O
requirements NN O O
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
n.s. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Surgical NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
custom-fit NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
min NN O O
less NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

KSS NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Knee NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Using NN O O
custom-fit NN O I-INT
pin NN O I-INT
guides NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O O
Hb NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
TKA NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
transfusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Surgical NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

LEVEL NN O O
OF NN O O
EVIDENCE NN O O
Therapeutic NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
Level NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23356250)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
lime NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
sickle NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
sickle NN O O
cell NN O O
anemia NN O O
( NN O O
SCA NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
triggered NN O O
by NN O O
dehydration NN O O
, NN O O
acidosis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fever NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
usually NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
malaria NN O O
. NN O O

Intake NN O O
of NN O O
lime NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
was NN O O
recently NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
clearance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
malaria NN O O
parasite NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
therefore NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
regular NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
lime NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
will NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
crisis NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
preliminary NN O O
, NN O O
open-labeled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
lime NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
laboratory NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SCA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
the NN O O
113 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SCA NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
58 NN O O
receiving NN O O
lime NN O O
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
painful NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
55 NN O O
without NN O I-INT
lime NN O I-INT
( NN O O
37 NN O O
versus NN O O
83 NN O O
crises NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.64?0.11 NN O O
versus NN O O
1.51?0.34 NN O O
average NN O O
rates NN O O
per NN O O
child NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
fewer NN O O
subjects NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
painful NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
50.0 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
92.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
46.6 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
87.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
admission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
34.5 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

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
26.23?2.03 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
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
also 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

However NN O O
, NN O O
transfusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hepatomegaly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
splenomegaly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
jaundice NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
lime NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
side-effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Regular NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
lime NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
great NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
and NN O O
nutritional NN O O
relevance NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SCA NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23357440)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual 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
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: 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

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
modular NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
protocol NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
treatment 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
among NN O O
children 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
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7-11 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
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
16 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
weekly NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
for NN O O
an NN O O
equivalent NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
screening NN O O
, NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Raters NN O O
were NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Youth NN O O
receiving NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
substantial NN O O
improvement NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
on NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Of NN O O
24 NN O O
children NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treatment NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
only NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Gains NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
responders NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Relative NN O O
to NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
adapted NN O O
for NN O O
anxious NN O O
youth NN O O
with NN O O
high-functioning NN O O
ASD NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
large NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
growing NN O O
literature NN O O
supporting NN O O
adapted NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
approaches NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
youth NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23392542)

Plasma NN O I-OUT
AGE-peptides NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
early-stage NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
thiamine NN O O
and NN O O
pyridoxine NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

AIM 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
circulatory NN O I-OUT
AGE-peptide NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
thiamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
B1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
B6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N.=57 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
( NN O O
N.=27 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
( NN O O
N.=30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Diabetic NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
B6 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N.=12 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
250 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
B1+B6 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N.=15 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
250 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
five NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
experimentation NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thiamine NN O I-OUT
pyrophosphate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pyridoxal NN O I-OUT
phosphate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AGE- NN O I-OUT
peptides NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
AGE-peptides NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
with NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
than NN O O
without NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
five NN O O
months NN O O
AGE-peptides NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
without NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.042 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
treated NN O O
either NN O O
with NN O O
B1+B6 NN O I-INT
or NN O O
B6 NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
B6 NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
group NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.033 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

B1+B6 NN O I-INT
or NN O O
B6 NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
both NN O O
caused NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.006 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Among NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
measured NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
AGE-peptides NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
parameter NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
than NN O O
without NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
B1+B6 NN O I-INT
or NN O O
B6 NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
display NN O O
any NN O O
further NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
AGE-peptides NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
five NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
caused NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23417625)

Social NN O O
skills NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

High-functioning NN O O
autism NN O O
( NN O O
HFA NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
persistent NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O O
retardation NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
an NN O O
increasing NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
group-based NN O O
programs NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
described NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
their NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Social NN O I-INT
Skills NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
Group-based NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SST-GP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
Leisure NN O I-INT
Activities NN O I-INT
Group-based NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LA-GP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
facial NN O O
emotions 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
in NN O O
young NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
HFA NN O O
. NN O O

Eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HFA NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
or NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
group 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
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
error NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
labeling NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DANVA2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
training NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
made NN O O
fewer NN O O
errors NN O O
in NN O O
labeling NN O O
anger NN O O
on NN O O
adult NN O O
faces NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
error NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
. NN O O

Progress NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recognize NN O I-OUT
anger NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
was NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
recognition NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
intensity NN O O
stimuli NN O O
on NN O O
adult NN O O
faces NN O O
. NN O O

QoL NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dimension NN O O
of NN O O
school NN O O
environment NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transfer NN O O
of NN O O
skills NN O O
acquired NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
setting NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SST-GP NN O I-INT
had NN O O
higher NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
LA-GP NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Data NN O O
justify NN O O
replication NN O O
using NN O O
larger NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23549581)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
duloxetine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
function 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
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-induced NN O I-PAR
painful NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

IMPORTANCE NN O O
There NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
known NN O O
effective NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
painful NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O O
peripheral NN O O
neuropathy 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
duloxetine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
. 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
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
National NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Institute NN O O
( NN O O
NCI NN O O
) NN O O
-funded NN O O
cooperative NN O O
research NN O O
networks NN O O
that NN O O
enrolled NN O O
231 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Study NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
July NN O O
2012 NN O O
. NN O O

Stratified NN O O
by NN O O
chemotherapeutic NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
comorbid NN O O
pain NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
duloxetine NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
duloxetine NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Eligibility NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
sensory NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
NCI NN O I-PAR
Common NN O I-PAR
Terminology NN O I-PAR
Criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Adverse NN O I-PAR
Events NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
representing NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-induced NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
paclitaxel NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
taxane NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
oxaliplatin NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
The NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
taking NN O O
1 NN O O
capsule NN O O
daily NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
duloxetine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
capsules NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
duloxetine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
additional NN O O
weeks 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
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
duloxetine NN O I-INT
would NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
neuropathic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Brief NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Inventory-Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
item NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
0 NN O O
representing NN O O
no NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
10 NN O O
representing NN O O
as NN O O
bad NN O O
as NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
imagined NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Individuals NN O O
receiving NN O O
duloxetine NN O O
as NN O O
their NN O O
initial NN O O
5-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
of 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
0.72-1.40 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
0.34 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.01-0.66 NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
; NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
0.513 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
observed NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
duloxetine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.73 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.26-1.20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-nine NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
initially NN O O
receiving NN O O
duloxetine NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
initially NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O O
reported NN O O
decreased NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
any NN O O
amount NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
Among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
painful NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-induced NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
duloxetine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00489411 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23838728)

Teacher NN O O
and NN O O
child NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
achieving NN O O
IEP NN O O
goals NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
encouraging NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
more NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
for NN O O
understanding NN O O
the NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
specialized NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
predictor NN O O
variables NN O O
from NN O O
47 NN O I-PAR
teachers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
COMPASS NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Ruble NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
The NN O O
collaborative NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
promoting NN O O
competence NN O O
and NN O O
success NN O O
for NN O O
students NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Springer NN O O
, NN O O
New NN O O
York NN O O
, NN O O
2012a NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Predictors NN O O
evaluated NN O O
against NN O O
child NN O O
IEP NN O O
goal NN O O
attainment NN O O
included NN O O
child NN O O
, NN O O
teacher NN O O
, NN O O
intervention NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
implementation NN O O
practice NN O O
variables NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
implementation NN O O
science NN O O
framework NN O O
( NN O O
Dunst NN O O
and NN O O
Trivette NN O O
in NN O O
J NN O O
Soc NN O O
Sci NN O O
8:143-148 NN O O
, NN O O
2012 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
revealed NN O O
one NN O O
child NN O O
( NN O O
engagement NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
teacher NN O O
( NN O O
exhaustion NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
intervention NN O O
quality NN O O
( NN O O
IEP NN O O
quality NN O O
for NN O O
targeted NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
targeted NN O O
elements NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
implementation NN O O
quality NN O O
variables NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
when NN O O
analyzed NN O O
separately NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
significant NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
against NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
IEP NN O O
quality NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
quarter NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23849147)

Bayesian NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
trials NN O O
offer NN O O
advantages NN O O
in NN O O
comparative NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
trials NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
example NN O O
in NN O O
status NN O I-PAR
epilepticus NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
present NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
Bayesian NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
comparative NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
three NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
status NN O O
epilepticus NN O O
that NN O O
uses NN O O
adaptive NN O O
randomization NN O O
with NN O O
potential NN O O
early NN O O
stopping NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
enroll NN O O
720 NN O I-PAR
unique NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
departments NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
uses NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Bayesian NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
is NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
without NN O O
adaptive NN O O
randomization NN O O
and NN O O
produces NN O O
an NN O O
efficient NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
while NN O O
generally NN O O
using NN O O
fewer NN O O
total NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
offers NN O O
higher NN O O
power NN O O
than NN O O
an NN O O
analogous NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
fixed NN O O
randomization NN O O
when NN O O
identifying NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
When NN O O
one NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
provides NN O O
better NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
higher NN O O
power NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
expected NN O I-OUT
sample NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23985254)

[ NN O O
Impact NN O O
of NN O O
CCND1 NN O O
A870G NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
on NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
concurrent NN O I-PAR
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
] 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
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
single NN O O
nucleotide NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
( NN O O
SNP NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
CCND1 NN O O
A870G NN O O
and NN O O
acute 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
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
capecitabine-based NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-PAR
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
CRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
CRT NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
capecitabine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
accumulated NN O O
and NN O O
prostectively NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients 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

Two NN O O
hundred NN O O
and NN O O
twenty-eight NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
concurrent NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cap-CRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
172 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cap-Oxa-CRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
graded NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Common NN O I-OUT
Terminology NN O I-OUT
Criteria NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
Events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
v. NN O I-OUT
3.0 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CTCAE NN O I-OUT
v3.0 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
genotype NN O O
of NN O O
CCND1 NN O O
A870G NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction-based NN O O
restriction NN O O
fragment NN O O
length NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
( NN O O
PCR-RFLP NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
SNP NN O O
and NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
odds NN O O
ratios NN O O
( NN O O
ORs NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
( NN O O
CIs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
computed NN O O
with NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
136 NN O O
patients NN O O
presented NN O O
severe NN O O
AEs NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Among NN O O
them NN O O
the NN O O
frequencies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
genotypes NN O O
GG NN O O
, NN O O
GA NN O O
and NN O O
AA NN O O
were NN O O
16.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
50.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
32.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
24.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
48.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
27.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
severe NN O O
AEs NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Diarrhea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
AE NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
109 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequencies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
genotypes NN O O
GG NN O O
, NN O O
GA NN O O
and NN O O
AA NN O O
were NN O O
15.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
47.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
36.7 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
24.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
49.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
26.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
1.66-fold NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
AA NN O O
genotype NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.03 NN O O
- NN O O
2.67 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
GG NN O O
or NN O O
GA NN O O
genotypes NN O O
. NN O O

Stratified NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Cap-Oxa-CRT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
AA NN O O
genotype NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
2.34-fold NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.16 NN O O
- NN O O
4.76 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
GG NN O O
or NN O O
GA NN O O
genotypes NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Cap-CRT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
SNP NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
genetic NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
of NN O O
CCND1 NN O O
A870G NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
biomarker NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24075141)

Data NN O O
mining NN O O
the NN O O
ScanBrit 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 O
behavioural NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychometric NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
results NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
examination 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
diet NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
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
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ScanBrit NN O O
collaboration NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
grouped NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
several NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
dietary NN O O
and NN O O
non-dietary NN O O
participants NN O O
across NN O O
various NN O O
core NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
also NN O O
indicated NN O O
some NN O O
disparity NN O O
in NN O O
individual NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
dietary NN O O
modification NN O O
potentially NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
responder NN O O
and NN O O
non-responder NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
behavioural NN O O
and NN O O
psychometric NN O O
data NN O O
garnered NN O O
from NN O O
participants NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
view NN O O
to NN O O
determining NN O O
potential NN O O
factors NN O O
pertinent NN O O
to NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
with NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
scores NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
inattention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
positive NN O O
changes NN O O
to NN O O
said NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
responders NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
indicated NN O O
several NN O O
factors NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
potentially NN O O
pertinent NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O O
presentation NN O O
. NN O O

Chronological NN O O
age NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
those NN O O
participants NN O O
aged NN O O
between NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
years NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
derive NN O O
most NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Further NN O O
analysis NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
original NN O O
study NN O O
inclusion NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
urine NN O O
compound NN O O
, NN O O
trans-indolyl-3-acryloylglycine NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
merit NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
preliminary NN O O
observations NN O O
on NN O O
potential NN O O
best NN O O
responder NN O O
characteristics NN O O
to NN O O
a 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 O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
require NN O O
independent NN O O
replication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24080592)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS NN O O
Elevated NN O O
triglyceride NN O O
levels NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
predispose NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
earlier NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
accelerated NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
whether NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
affects NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
triglyceride NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
90 NN O O
days NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
simvastatin 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
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
homeostasis NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hemostasic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Simvastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
reduced NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels/activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
3.5 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
to NN O O
2.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
g/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
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
144.2 NN O O
? NN O O
16.9 NN O O
to NN O O
112.5 NN O O
? NN O O
14.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
76.9 NN O O
? NN O O
13.5 NN O O
to NN O O
50.2 NN O O
? NN O O
9.2 NN O O
ng/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
without NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
prolong NN O O
the NN O O
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
thromboplastin NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
produces NN O O
a NN O O
multidirectional NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
bring NN O O
some NN O O
benefits NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
triglyceride NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24317958)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
irrigation NN O O
systems NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
sealer 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
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sonic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrodynamic NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
sealer NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
surface NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
simulated NN O O
irregularities NN O O
of NN O O
root NN O O
canals NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-three NN O O
root NN O O
canals NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
standardized NN O O
grooves NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
apical NN O O
and NN O O
coronal NN O O
parts NN O O
of NN O O
longitudinally NN O O
split NN O O
roots NN O O
were NN O O
covered NN O O
with NN O O
AH NN O O
Plus NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
sealer NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
syringe NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
CanalBrush NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
passive NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
EndoActivator NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
RinsEndo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sealer NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
remaining NN O I-OUT
sealer NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
canal NN O I-OUT
irregularities NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O O
under NN O O
a NN O O
microscope NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
4-grade NN O O
scoring NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O I-OUT
sealer NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
canal NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
7-grade NN O I-OUT
scoring NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Passive NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
tested NN O O
irrigation NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
or NN O O
syringe NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
removing NN O I-OUT
sealer NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
canal NN O I-OUT
walls 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

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
techniques NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cleaning NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lateral NN O I-OUT
grooves NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS 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
protocol NN O O
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
shows NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
sealer NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
canal NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
endodontic NN O O
retreatment NN O O
. NN O O

Cleaning NN O O
of NN O O
lateral NN O O
grooves NN O O
seems NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
techniques NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
Incomplete NN O O
removal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
canal NN O I-OUT
sealer NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
re-treatment NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
treatment NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

Passive NN O I-INT
Ultrasonic NN O O
irrigation NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
system NN O O
to NN O O
remove NN O I-OUT
sealer NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
canal NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24350813)

An NN O O
open-label NN O O
extension 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
risperidone 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 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
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
irritability NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
behaviors NN O O
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
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
6 NN O O
month NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
open-label NN O O
extension NN O O
( NN O O
OLE NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
fixed-dose NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
DB NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
were NN O O
flexibly NN O O
dosed NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximum NN O O
allowed NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
1.25 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
weighing NN O O
20 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
45 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.75 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
weighing NN O O
? NN O O
45 NN O O
kg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
primarily NN O O
assessed NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
's NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
end-point NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
OLE NN O I-PAR
; NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
discontinuations NN O O
were NN O O
for NN O O
insufficient NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
[ NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AE NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
[ NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
AEs NN O O
were NN O O
increased NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
n=9 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
increased NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
n=7 NN O O
] NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pyrexia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and 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 O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
n=6 NN O O
] NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
nasopharyngitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
n=5 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
somnolence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
n=4 NN O O
] NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Extrapyramidal NN O O
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11-15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5-10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
; NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
discontinued NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
potentially NN O O
prolactin-related NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
irregular NN O I-OUT
menstruation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
mean NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
additional NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
OLE NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
During NN O O
this NN O O
OLE NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O O
findings NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
maximum NN O O
weight-based NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
1.25 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
or NN O O
1.75 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DB NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
safety NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
, NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
some NN O O
additional NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIALS NN O O
REGISTRY NN O O
This NN O O
phase-4 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
NCT00576732 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24451919)

Inverse NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
Fluoxetine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Medial NN O O
Prefrontal NN O O
Cortex NN O O
Activation NN O O
During NN O O
Reward NN O O
Reversal NN O O
in NN O O
ADHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Attention NN O I-PAR
deficit NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and 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
share NN O O
brain NN O O
function NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
during NN O O
cognitive NN O O
flexibility NN O O
. NN O O

Serotonin NN O O
is NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O O
reuptake NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
( NN O O
SSRIs NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
modulate NN O O
cognitive NN O O
flexibility NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
investigates NN O O
shared NN O O
and NN O O
disorder-specific NN O O
brain NN O O
dysfunctions NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
disorders NN O O
during NN O O
reward NN O O
reversal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
SSRI NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
. NN O O

Age-matched NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
functional NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
fMRI NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
reversal NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
scanned NN O O
twice NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
Fluoxetine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated-measures NN O O
analyses NN O O
within NN O O
patients NN O O
assessed NN O O
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
under NN O O
each NN O O
drug NN O O
condition NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
normalization NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

fMRI NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
ASD NN O O
boys NN O O
underactivated NN O O
medial NN O I-OUT
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mPFC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
ADHD NN O O
boys NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
shared NN O O
decreased NN O O
precuneus NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Under NN O O
Fluoxetine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mPFC NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
up-regulated NN O O
and NN O O
normalized NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
boys NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
down-regulated NN O O
in NN O O
ADHD NN O O
boys NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
concomitant NN O O
with NN O O
worse NN O O
task NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ADHD NN O O
. NN O O

Fluoxetine NN O I-INT
therefore NN O O
has NN O O
inverse NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
mPFC NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
ADHD NN O O
during NN O O
reversal NN O O
learning NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
dissociated NN O O
underlying NN O O
serotonin NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24515505)

Economic NN O O
burden NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
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
diagnoses NN O O
and NN O O
service NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
caregiver NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
national NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Medical NN O O
Expenditure NN O O
Panel NN O O
Survey NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Health NN O O
Interview NN O O
Survey NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
study-specific NN O O
survey NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
annual NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ASD-related NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
family-coordinated NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
parent-reported NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
estimated NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
ASD NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
child NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
race/ethnicity NN O O
, NN O O
insurance NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
household NN O O
income NN O O
, NN O O
country NN O O
region NN O O
and NN O O
urban/rural NN O O
classification NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
non-ASD-related NN O O
illnesses NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
parent-reported NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
office NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prescription NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O O
without NN O O
ASD NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASD NN O O
group NN O O
used NN O O
special NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
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
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
child NN O O
demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
non-ASD-associated NN O O
illnesses NN O O
, NN O O
ASD NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
$ NN O O
3020 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
1017- NN O O
$ NN O O
4259 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
$ NN O O
14,061 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
$ NN O O
4390- NN O O
$ NN O O
24,302 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
aggregate NN O O
non-health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
$ NN O O
8610 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
$ NN O O
6595- NN O O
$ NN O O
10,421 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
adjusted NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
who NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
had NN O O
ASD NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
out-of-pocket NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
spend NN O O
more NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
caregiving NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
economic NN O O
burden NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
is NN O O
substantial NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
across NN O O
multiple NN O O
sectors NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
society NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
analyses NN O O
that NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
underestimated NN O O
this NN O O
economic NN O O
burden NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
for NN O O
school NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24660757)

Compensation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
intergroup NN O O
relations NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
structural NN O O
and NN O O
strategic NN O O
foundations NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
work NN O O
in NN O O
intergroup NN O O
relations NN O O
stresses NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
fundamental NN O O
dimensions NN O O
, NN O O
competence NN O O
and NN O O
warmth NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
organize NN O O
the NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
pattern NN O O
often NN O O
encountered NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O O
's NN O O
ratings NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
compensation NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
evaluated NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
another NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
fundamental NN O O
dimensions NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
judged NN O O
lower NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
fundamental NN O O
dimension NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
Social NN O O
Identity NN O O
Theory NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
work NN O O
extends NN O O
previous NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
compensation NN O O
by NN O O
examining NN O O
boundary NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
underlying NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
processes NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Two NN O O
studies NN O O
involving NN O O
experimental NN O O
and NN O O
correlational NN O O
evidence NN O O
, NN O O
minimal NN O O
and NN O O
real NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
different NN O O
kinds NN O O
of NN O O
conflict NN O O
, NN O O
reveal NN O O
that NN O O
compensation NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
are NN O O
in NN O O
asymmetrical NN O O
relation NN O O
and NN O O
share NN O O
a NN O O
cooperative NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intergroup NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
also NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
members NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
status NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
compensation NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
creativity NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
line NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
'noblesse NN O O
oblige NN O O
' NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
members NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
status NN O O
group NN O O
would NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
rely NN O O
on NN O O
compensation NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
to NN O O
appear NN O O
non-discriminatory NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24726342)

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
bronchodilator NN O O
effects NN O O
from NN O O
specific NN O O
airway NN O O
resistance NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
stable NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
reversibility NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
evaluated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
forced NN O O
expiratory NN O O
volume NN O O
at NN O O
1s NN O O
( NN O O
?FEV1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
forced NN O O
vital NN O O
capacity NN O O
( NN O O
?FVC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
lowering NN O O
peripheral NN O O
airway NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
tone NN O O
, NN O O
bronchodilators NN O O
should NN O O
decrease NN O O
dynamic NN O O
hyperinflation NN O O
, NN O O
gas NN O O
trapping NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
possibly NN O O
dyspnea NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesize NN O O
that NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
?sRAW NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
should NN O O
better NN O O
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
bronchodilators NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
On NN O O
two NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
testing NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
300?g NN O O
indacaterol NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Spirographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
?sRAW-based NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
identified NN O O
as NN O O
responders NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

?sRAW NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
intrathoracic NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
?ITGV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r=0.61 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
?RV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r=0.60 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
?FVC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r=0.44 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
?VAS NN O O
( NN O O
r=0.73 NN O O
; 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
?FEV1 NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
only NN O O
with NN O O
?FVC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r=0.34 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
?ITGV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
?RV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
?VAS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
only NN O O
if NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
?sRAW NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
functional NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
bronchodilators NN O O
, NN O O
?sRAW-based NN O O
criterion NN O O
is NN O O
preferable NN O O
to NN O O
FEV1-FVC-based NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
being NN O O
more NN O O
closely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
bronchodilator-induced NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lung NN O O
mechanics NN O O
and NN O O
dyspnea NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24803369)

Youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
comprehend NN O O
lexicalized NN O I-INT
and NN O O
novel NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
conceptual NN O I-INT
metaphors NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Individuals 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
have NN O O
difficulty NN O O
comprehending NN O I-OUT
metaphors NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
has NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
they NN O O
understand NN O O
conceptual NN O I-OUT
metaphors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

mappings NN O O
between NN O O
conceptual NN O O
structures NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
building NN O O
blocks NN O O
of NN O O
metaphoric NN O O
thinking NN O O
and NN O O
understanding NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
03-22 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
03 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
comprehend NN O O
lexicalized NN O I-OUT
conceptual NN O I-OUT
metaphors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
Susan NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
warm NN O O
person NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
novel NN O I-OUT
ones NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
Susan NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
toasty NN O O
person NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
at NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
chance NN O O
levels NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
metaphor NN O I-OUT
types NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
their NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
TD NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
discuss NN O O
the NN O O
theoretical NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
and NN O O
educational NN O O
implications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24960665)

Paternal NN O O
RHD NN O O
zygosity NN O O
determination NN O O
in NN O O
Tunisians NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
molecular NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
molecular NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
first NN O O
intention NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
paternal NN O O
RHD NN O O
zygosity NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
entering NN O O
into NN O O
invasive NN O O
diagnostics NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
haemolytic NN O O
disease NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
foetus NN O O
and NN O O
newborn NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
anti-RhD NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
RHD NN O O
zygosity NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
370 NN O I-PAR
RH:1 NN O I-PAR
Tunisian NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
- NN O O
sequence-specific NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
( NN O O
PCR-SSP NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
- NN O O
restriction NN O O
fragment NN O O
length NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
( NN O O
PCR-RFLP NN O O
) NN O O
amplification NN O O
of NN O O
hybrid NN O O
Rhesus NN O O
box NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
real NN O O
time NN O O
quantitative NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
( NN O O
RQ-PCR NN O O
) NN O O
specific NN O O
for NN O O
RHD NN O O
exon NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
molecular NN O O
tests NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
discordant NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ten NN O O
exons NN O O
of NN O O
RHD NN O O
and NN O O
Rhesus NN O O
boxes NN O O
were NN O O
amplified NN O O
by NN O O
PCR NN O O
and NN O O
sequenced NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Molecular NN O O
investigations NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
our NN O O
370 NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
comprise NN O O
193 NN O O
dizygous NN O O
and NN O O
145 NN O O
hemizygous NN O O
individuals NN O O
and NN O O
32 NN O O
subjects NN O O
whose NN O O
zygosity NN O O
remains NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Positive NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
reaching NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
RQ-PCR NN O O
. NN O O

Negative NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
83.24 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
87.27 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
PCR-SSP NN O O
, NN O O
PCR-RFLP NN O O
and NN O O
RQ-PCR NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
also NN O O
revealed NN O O
19 NN O O
novel NN O O
Rhesus NN O I-OUT
box NN O I-OUT
polymorphisms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
three NN O O
novel NN O O
RHD NN O I-OUT
alleles NN O I-OUT
: NN O O
RHD NN O O
( NN O O
Trp185Stop NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
RHD NN O O
( NN O O
Ala176Thr NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
RHD NN O O
( NN O O
Ile342Ile NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
RQ-PCR NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
convenient NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
first NN O O
intention NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
paternal NN O O
RHD NN O O
zygosity NN O O
in NN O O
Tunisians NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
taking NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
positive NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
predictive NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
PCR-RFLP NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
of NN O O
Rhesus NN O O
boxes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
complexity NN O O
of NN O O
RHD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24989854)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preadolescent 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
: NN O O
generalization NN O O
of NN O O
skills NN O O
by NN O O
training NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
teachers NN O O
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
intervention 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
ASDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
improve NN O O
their NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
SSTs NN O I-INT
are NN O O
often NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
trainings NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
inconclusive NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
generalization NN O O
of NN O O
learned NN O O
skills NN O O
are NN O O
little NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
teachers NN O O
on NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
generalization NN O O
of NN O O
learned NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
daily NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
expect NN O O
parent NN O O
and NN O O
teacher NN O O
involvement NN O O
in NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
treatment NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
generalization NN O O
of NN O O
learned NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
daily NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD/DESIGN NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
calendar NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
, NN O O
SST-PTI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SST NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Parent NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
Teacher NN O I-INT
Involvement NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
care-as-usual NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
consists NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
group NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
1.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
SST-PTI NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
additionally NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
parent NN O O
sessions NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
teachers NN O O
are NN O O
actively NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
homework NN O O
assignments NN O O
. NN O O

Assessment NN O O
takes NN O O
place NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
moments NN O O
: NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
socialization NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
adaptive NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
children NN O O
learn NN O O
during NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
and NN O O
on NN O O
more NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
pertaining NN O O
to NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
community NN O O
settings NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
multi-informant NN O O
perspective NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
possible NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
study NN O O
evaluating NN O O
SST NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
Dutch NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Strengths NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
manualized NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
standardized NN O O
and NN O O
internationally NN O O
used NN O O
rating NN O O
instruments NN O O
, NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
raters NN O O
, NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
generalization NN O O
of NN O O
learned NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
daily NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
longer NN O O
term NN O O
by NN O O
follow-up NN O O
measures NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NTR2405 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25068497)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
preliminary NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Cuban NN O I-INT
pneumococcal NN O I-INT
conjugate NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
candidate NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
new NN O O
heptavalent NN O I-INT
conjugate NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCV7-TT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
under NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
Cuba NN O O
. NN O O

PCV7-TT NN O I-INT
contains NN O O
2 NN O O
?g NN O O
of NN O O
serotypes NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
18C NN O O
, NN O O
19F NN O O
, NN O O
23F NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
?g NN O O
of NN O O
6B NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
one NN O O
conjugated NN O O
to NN O O
tetanus NN O O
toxoid NN O O
( NN O O
TT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
serotypes NN O O
that NN O O
cause NN O O
most NN O O
invasive NN O O
pneumococcal NN O O
diseases NN O O
( NN O O
IPD NN O O
) NN O O
worldwide 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
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
PCV7-TT NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
in NN O O
4-5-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PCV7-TT NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
as NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
Synflorix NN O I-INT
used NN O O
as NN O O
control NN O O
vaccine NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
a NN O O
single-dose NN O O
vaccination NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
individual NN O O
serotypes NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
PCV7-TT NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
IgG NN O I-OUT
GMC NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
OPA NN O I-OUT
GMT NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

These NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
PCV7-TT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
pave NN O O
the NN O O
way NN O O
toward NN O O
next NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
published NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Cuban NN O O
Public NN O O
Register NN O O
of NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
with NN O O
code NN O O
RPCEC00000173 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25369243)

Atomoxetine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
no NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
some NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
stereotyped NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inappropriate NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
fear NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Abstract NN O O
Objective 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
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
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
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
97 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
6-17 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
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
1.2 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
of NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
during NN O O
an NN O O
8 NN O O
week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
period NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
parent-based NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
, 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 O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSBQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Inappropriate NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Stereotypic NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CSBQ NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
Fear NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
no NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
atomoxetine NN O O
on NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
restricted NN O O
and NN O O
stereotyped NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
( NN O O
www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
) NN O O
under NN O O
registration NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00380692 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25479285)

Randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
text NN O O
messaging NN O O
on NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
preventive NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
INTERACT NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
About NN O O
one NN O O
third NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
prescribed NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
lipid-lowering NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
not NN O O
take NN O O
their NN O O
medication NN O O
as NN O O
prescribed NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
text NN O I-INT
messaging NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
improving NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
preventive NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
303 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
lipid-lowering NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
being NN O O
sent NN O O
text NN O I-INT
messages NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Text NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
151 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O I-INT
being NN O I-INT
sent NN O I-INT
them NN O I-INT
( NN O O
No NN O O
text NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
152 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Texts NN O O
were NN O O
sent NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
alternate NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
weekly NN O O
thereafter NN O O
for NN O O
22 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
overall NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
automated NN O O
computer NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
on NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
taken NN O O
their NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
text NN O O
reminded NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
do NN O O
so NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
forgotten NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
taken NN O O
their NN O O
medication NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
not NN O O
doing NN O O
so NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
lost NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
301 NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
No NN O O
text NN O O
group NN O O
38/151 NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
took NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prescribed NN O O
regimen NN O O
( NN O O
ie NN O O
. NN O O

stopped NN O O
medication NN O O
completely NN O O
or NN O O
took NN O O
it NN O O
on NN O O
fewer NN O O
than NN O O
22 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
14/150 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Text NN O I-INT
group NN O O
- NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
affecting NN O O
16 NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
7 NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
texts NN O O
reminded NN O O
98/151 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
medication NN O O
on NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
occasion NN O O
and NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
20/151 NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
stopped NN O O
taking NN O O
medication NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
concern NN O O
over NN O O
efficacy NN O O
or NN O O
side-effects NN O O
, NN O O
resuming NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
lipid-lowering NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
text NN O I-INT
messaging NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
medication NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O I-INT
text NN O I-INT
messaging NN O I-INT
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Controlled-Trials.com NN O O
ISRCTN74757601 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25784723)

Regional NN O O
ventricular NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
tetralogy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Fallot NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Public-health NN O O
guidelines NN O O
recommend NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congenital NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
congenital NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
physical NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
regional NN O O
ventricular NN O O
performance NN O O
has NN O O
hardly NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
adverse NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
regional NN O O
ventricular NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
corrected NN O I-PAR
tetralogy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Fallot NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tetralogy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Fallot NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
12-week NN O O
standardized NN O O
aerobic NN O O
dynamic NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
one-hour NN O O
sessions NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-training NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MRI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
echocardiography NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
tissue-Doppler NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=28 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tissue-Doppler NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
right NN O O
ventricle NN O O
free NN O O
wall NN O O
peak NN O O
velocity NN O O
E NN O O
' NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.8?2.6 NN O O
cm/s NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.9?4.1 NN O O
; NN O O
peak NN O O
velocity NN O O
A NN O O
' NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.4?2.4 NN O O
m/s NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
4.6?18.1 NN O O
cm/s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
regional NN O O
ventricular NN O O
performance NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
maintained NN O O
during NN O O
3-month NN O O
aerobic NN O O
dynamic NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
repaired NN O I-PAR
tetralogy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Fallot NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

This NN O O
information NN O O
might NN O O
help NN O O
patients NN O O
adhere NN O O
to NN O O
current NN O O
public-health NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

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.trialregister.nl NN O O
. NN O O

Unique NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NTR2731 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25885649)

Subjective NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
cardiorespiratory NN O O
fitness NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION 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
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
agreement NN O O
between NN O O
subjective NN O O
( NN O O
assessed NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
IPAQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
objective NN O O
( NN O O
accelerometry NN O O
; NN O O
GT3X NN O I-OUT
) 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
levels 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 O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
RA NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
PA NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VO2max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
participants NN O O
wore NN O O
the NN O O
GT3X NN O O
for NN O O
seven NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
IPAQ NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
test NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Bland-Altman NN O O
plot NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
illustrate NN O O
the NN O O
agreement NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
objective NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
PA NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
PA NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
test NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
correlations NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Steiger NN O O
's NN O O
Z NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age=55?13 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
: NN O I-PAR
27.8?5.4 NN O I-PAR
kg/m2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
duration=5 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2-8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
yrs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
. NN O O

Smaller NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
when NN O O
PA NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
moderate NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Wilcoxon NN O O
tests NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
less NN O O
time NN O O
spent NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Z=-6.80 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
light NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Z=-6.89 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
more NN O O
moderate NN O O
PA NN O O
( NN O O
Z=-6.26 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
was NN O O
objectively NN O O
indicated NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
positive NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
revealed NN O O
between NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
all NN O O
PA NN O O
levels NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
accelerometry NN O O
( NN O O
light NN O O
PA NN O O
rho=.35 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
; NN O O
moderate NN O O
PA NN O O
rho=.34 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.01 NN O O
; NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
vigorous NN O O
PA NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
MVPA NN O O
) NN O O
rho=.33 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
association NN O O
to NN O O
sedentary NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ST NN O O
) NN O O
emerged NN O O
( NN O O
rho=-.27 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IPAQ-reported NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MVPA NN O I-OUT
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
maxV02 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
rho=.25 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.01 NN O O
, NN O O
rho=.27 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.01 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
IPAQ-VO2 NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GT3X-VO2 NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
ST NN O O
( NN O O
Z=3.43 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Via NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
IPAQ NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
RA NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
sedentary NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
higher NN O O
intensity NN O O
PA NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
what NN O O
was NN O O
objectively NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Accelerometry NN O O
data NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
PA NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
subjective NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
MPVA NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
self-reported NN O O
PA NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ST NN O I-OUT
should NN O O
be NN O O
interpreted NN O O
with NN O O
caution NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
RA NN O O
and NN O O
complemented NN O O
with NN O O
accelerometry NN O O
when NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Trial NN O O
registration NN O O
: NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
ISRCTN04121489 NN O O
. NN O O

Registered NN O O
5 NN O O
September NN O O
2012 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25886492)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
personalised NN O I-INT
decision NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
internet NN O O
for NN O O
bowel NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
faecal NN O O
occult NN O O
blood NN O O
test NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
tailoring NN O O
of NN O O
messages NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
social NN O O
cognitive NN O O
variables NN O O
on NN O O
participation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
Australia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
bowel NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
participation NN O O
using NN O O
faecal NN O O
occult NN O O
blood NN O O
testing NN O O
( NN O O
FOBT NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
low NN O O
. NN O O

Decision NN O O
support NN O O
tailored NN O O
to NN O O
psychological NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
participation NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
tailored NN O I-INT
computerised NN O I-INT
decision NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
to NN O O
non-tailored NN O O
computer NN O O
or NN O O
paper NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
FOBT NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
movement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
screen NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
trial NN O O
invited NN O I-PAR
25,511 NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
50-74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
complete NN O O
an NN O O
eligibility NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

Eligible NN O O
respondents NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
3,408 NN O I-PAR
) NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
Tailored NN O I-INT
Personalised NN O I-INT
Decision NN O I-INT
Support NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TPDS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Non-Tailored NN O I-INT
PDS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NTPDS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
Control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CG NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
, NN O O
ITT NN O O
sample NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

TPDS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
NTPDS NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
completed NN O O
an NN O O
on-line NN O O
baseline NN O O
survey NN O O
( NN O O
BS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
accessed NN O O
generic NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TPDS NN O O
group NN O O
additionally NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
tailored NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

CG NN O O
participants NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
paper NN O O
BS NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
BS NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
2270 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
mailed NN O O
an NN O O
FOBT NN O O
and NN O O
requested NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
an NN O O
endpoint NN O O
survey NN O O
( NN O O
ES NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
re-measured NN O O
BS NN O O
variables NN O O
( NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
, NN O O
PP NN O O
sample NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
FOBT NN O O
return NN O I-OUT
: NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
ITT NN O O
sample 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
any NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
2.57 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.26 NN O O
; NN O O
TPDS NN O O
, NN O O
32.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
NTPDS NN O O
, NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
CG NN O O
, NN O O
34.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
PP NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
FOBT NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
internet NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
paper NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
17.01 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
; NN O O
TPDS NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
NTPDS NN O O
, NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
CG NN O O
, NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

FOBT NN O I-OUT
completion NN O O
by NN O O
TPDS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
NTPDS NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
2.23 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.13 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
kit NN O O
return NN O O
. NN O O

Decision NN O O
to NN O O
screen NN O O
: NN O O
2227/2270 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PP NN O O
sample NN O O
provided NN O O
complete NN O O
BS NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
not NN O O
wanting NN O O
to NN O O
screen NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
1083/2227 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
TPDS NN O O
and NN O O
NTPDS NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
decide NN O O
to NN O O
screen NN O O
and NN O O
return NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
FOBT NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
CG NN O O
. NN O O

FOBT NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
TPDS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
NTPDS NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
one NN O O
another NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.16 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.42 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O O
on NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
predictors NN O I-OUT
: NN O O
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
salience NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coherence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
improved NN O O
and NN O O
faecal NN O O
aversion NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
tailored NN O O
messaging NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Online NN O O
information NN O O
resources NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
encouraging NN O O
internet-enabled NN O O
people NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
uncommitted NN O O
to NN O O
screening NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
their NN O O
attitudes NN O O
, NN O O
perceptions NN O O
and NN O O
behaviour NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Australian NN O O
New NN O O
Zealand NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Registry NN O O
ACTRN12610000095066 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25898782)

Sedation NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-PAR
retrograde NN O I-PAR
cholangiopancreatography NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
sedation NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
given NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
nurse NN O O
anesthetist NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Different NN O O
regimens NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
sedation NN O O
during NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
retrograde NN O O
cholangiopancreatography NN O O
( NN O O
ERCP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
objectives NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PCS NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
nurse NN O O
anesthetist-controlled NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ACS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
department NN O O
's NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
given NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
team NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
281 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
301 NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
PCS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
101 NN O O
) NN O O
delivered NN O O
bolus NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
according NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
sedation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ACS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
100 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
2-8 NN O O
mg/kg/h NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
infused NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
sedation NN O O
being NN O O
level NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Observer NN O O
's NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
Alertness/Sedation NN O O
( NN O O
OAA/S NN O O
) NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
2-3 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
for NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
additional NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
if NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
PCS NN O O
and NN O O
ACS NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
sedation NN O O
( NN O O
ACS NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
; NN O O
PCS NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
; NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ACS NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
deeply NN O O
sedated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
OAA/S NN O O
level NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
desaturation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
obstructed NN O O
airways NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
PCS NN O O
and NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
full NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Aldrete NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
?9 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
shortest NN O O
following NN O O
PCS NN O O
. NN O O

PCS NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
' NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
PCS NN O O
and NN O O
ACS NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
PCS NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
ACS NN O O
. NN O O

PCS NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
fewer NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
almost NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
ACS NN O O
in NN O O
ensuring NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25931290)

Sensory NN O I-INT
Adapted NN O I-INT
Dental NN O I-INT
Environments NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Enhance NN O O
Oral NN O O
Care 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 O
A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Pilot NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pilot NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
adapted NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
environment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SADE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
oral NN O O
prophylaxis 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
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
6-12 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
typical NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O O
underwent NN O O
two NN O O
professional NN O O
dental NN O O
cleanings NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
environment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RDE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
SADE NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
counterbalanced NN O O
order NN O O
3-4 NN O O
months NN O O
apart NN O O
. NN O O

Outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
exhibited NN O O
decreased NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reported NN O O
lower NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
SADE NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
RDE NN O I-INT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SADE NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25950425)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
oral NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
perioperative NN O O
intravenous NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparatomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES 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
preoperative NN O O
oral NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
perioperative NN O O
intravenous NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
defecation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
laparotomy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
65 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
elective NN O I-PAR
laparotomy 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
( NN O O
n=20 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
capsules NN O O
and NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
perioperatively NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O O
L NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
capsules NN O O
and NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
mg?kg NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bolus NN O O
dose NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
mg?kg?h NN O O
infusion NN O O
until NN O O
skin NN O O
closure NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
, NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
oral NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
perioperatively NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
PL NN O O
, NN O O
150 NN O O
& NN O O
nbsp NN O O
; NN O O
mg NN O O
oral NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg?kg?h NN O O
infusion NN O O
until NN O O
skin NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

Hemodynamic NN O O
parameters NN O I-OUT
, 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
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
defecation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
VAS NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
group NN O O
L NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
PL NN O O
were NN O O
lower 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
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
PL NN O O
was NN O O
lower 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
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
L NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
PL NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O O
defecation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
L NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
PL NN O O
compared 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
Preoperative NN O O
oral NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
perioperative NN O O
intravenous NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
decreased NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Preoperative NN O O
oral NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
perioperative NN O O
intravenous NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
hastened NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
motility NN O O
and NN O O
mobilization NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
laparotomy NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
preoperative NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
superior NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
laparatomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26210844)

A NN O O
New NN O O
Interactive NN O I-INT
Screening NN O I-INT
Test NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Toddlers NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
valid NN O O
interactive NN O O
level NN O O
2 NN O O
screening NN O O
assessment NN O O
for NN O O
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
in NN O I-PAR
toddlers NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
is NN O O
brief NN O O
, NN O O
easily NN O O
administered NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
scored NN O O
by NN O O
clinicians NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
We NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
standardization NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
validation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Rapid NN O I-INT
Interactive NN O I-INT
Screening NN O I-INT
Test NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Autism NN O O
in NN O O
Toddlers NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
RITA-T NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
ASD-specific NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
RITA-T NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
and NN O O
scored NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RITA-T NN O I-INT
to NN O O
distinguish NN O O
between NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
delay NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/non-ASD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
's NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
concerns NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

We NN O O
identified NN O O
a NN O O
cutoff NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on 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
positive NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
RITA-T NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
best NN O O
differentiates NN O O
between NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
DD/non-ASD 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
61 NN O I-PAR
toddlers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

RITA-T NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
ASD-specific NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
tools NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.79 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ASD NN O O
clinical NN O O
diagnoses NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.77 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
DD/non-ASD NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
developmental NN O O
concerns NN O O
( NN O O
20.8 NN O O
vs NN O O
13 NN O O
vs NN O O
10.6 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
a NN O O
cutoff NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
RITA-T NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
1.00 NN O O
, NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
0.84 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
0.88 NN O O
for NN O O
identifying NN O O
ASD NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
high-risk NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
RITA-T NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
new NN O O
level NN O O
2 NN O O
interactive NN O O
screening NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
toddlers NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
general NN O O
pediatric NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
settings NN O O
and NN O O
allowing NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26278470)

Inference-Based NN O I-INT
Approach NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Cognitive NN O I-INT
Behavioral NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Obsessive-Compulsive NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Poor NN O I-PAR
Insight NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
A NN O O
24-Session NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Obsessive-compulsive NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
OCD NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
insight NN O O
has NN O O
severe NN O O
consequences NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
nonetheless NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
has NN O O
ever NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
treatment NN O O
specifically NN O O
for NN O O
poor-insight NN O O
OCD NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
new NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
OCD NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
inference-based NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IBA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
targets NN O O
insight NN O O
in NN O O
OCD NN O O
by NN O O
strengthening NN O O
normal NN O O
sensory-driven NN O O
reality NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
new NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavior 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
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OCD NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
insight NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OCD NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
insight NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
24 NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
or NN O O
24 NN O O
IBA NN O I-INT
sessions 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
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
YBOCS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms 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 O

Mixed-effects NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
both NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
OCD NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reached NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
condition NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
worst NN O O
insight NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
IBA NN O I-INT
reached NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
OCD NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
estimated NN O O
marginal NN O O
mean NN O O
= NN O O
-7.77 NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
219.45 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
-2.4 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
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OCD NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
insight NN O I-PAR
improve NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
psychological NN O O
treatment 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
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
IBA NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
OCD NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
insight NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IBA NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
promising NN O O
than NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
extreme NN O O
poor NN O O
insight NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2678230)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ionic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
nonionic NN O I-INT
x-ray NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
media NN O O
on NN O O
myocardial NN O O
perfusion NN O O
and NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
function NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
Amidotrizoate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Iopromide NN O I-INT
into NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
on NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
pressures NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
ventricle NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
excitation NN O O
formation NN O O
and NN O O
transmission NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
xenon-133 NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
between NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
dipyridamole NN O O
load NN O O
for NN O O
ionic NN O O
and NN O O
non-ionic NN O O
contrast NN O O
media NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2803397)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
sympatho-adrenergic NN O O
stress NN O O
reaction NN O O
in NN O O
ear NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
various NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
technics 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
present 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
various NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
procedures NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
endocrine NN O O
stress NN O O
responses NN O O
during NN O O
ear NN O I-PAR
microsurgical NN O I-PAR
operations NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Simple NN O I-PAR
mastoidectomies NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-PAR
mastoidectomies NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tympano NN O I-PAR
plastics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
carried NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
under NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
randomised NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
procedures NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
retroauricular NN O O
infiltration NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ornipressin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
retroauricular NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ornipressin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
retroauricular NN O O
infiltration NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
4 NN O O
retroauricular NN O O
infiltration NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
prilocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
epinephrine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine 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 O
free NN O O
glycerol NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
mean NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
MAP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
skin NN O O
incision NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
having NN O O
started NN O O
bone NN O O
drilling 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
operation NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
covariance NN O O
analysis NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
catecholamine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
investigation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
general NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
( NN O O
Groups NN O O
1-3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
catecholamines NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
epinephrine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
retroauricular NN O O
infiltration NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
group NN O O
variabilities NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
MAP NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
epinephrine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
stress NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
glycerol NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
is NN O O
documented NN O O
by NN O O
normal NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
epinephrine NN O O
and NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
operation 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- (2908133)

Low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ketazolam NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anxiety NN O I-PAR
: 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

A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
between-patient NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ketazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
given NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
92 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
generalized NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
47 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
ketazolam NN O I-INT
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
period 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
this NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HAM-A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
basal NN O O
value NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
kept NN O O
unchanged NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
otherwise NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
ketazolam NN O I-INT
were NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
second NN O O
period NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Anxiety NN O O
was NN O O
rated NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Italian NN O I-OUT
HAM-A NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
4-point NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Seventy-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
whole NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
period NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
responders NN O O
was NN O O
almost NN O O
identical NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
period NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
slight NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
responders NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
HAM-A NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
ketazolam NN O I-INT
continued NN O O
to NN O O
improve 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
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Likewise 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
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
4-point NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
( NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O O
period NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
responder NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
end NN O O
second NN O O
period NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tolerability NN O O
was NN O O
good NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
who NN O O
was NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3067745)

Levobunolol NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
: NN O O
a NN O O
four-year NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
raised NN O I-PAR
intraocular NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IOP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
years NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
ophthalmic NN O O
solutions NN O O
: NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
levobunolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
levobunolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
. 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-masked NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
eyes NN O O
. NN O O

Levobunolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
8.8 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
levobunolol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
raised NN O O
IOP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3074300)

Role NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
in NN O O
early NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
non-insulin NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
metabolism NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
non-insulin NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
run-in/drug NN O O
; NN O O
placebo/wash-out NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
metabolic NN O O
ward NN O O
. NN O O

Captopril NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced 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
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
154/90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5/2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
144/86 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4/3 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
major NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
run-in NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
upon NN O O
ACE-inhibition NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
a.m. NN O O
: NN O O
12.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
11.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
; NN O O
1 NN O O
p.m. NN O O
: NN O O
11.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mmol/l 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
while NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
kinin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
40.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
pmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
approximately NN O O
doubled NN O O
( NN O O
108.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
23.5 NN O O
pmol/l 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

Body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
electrolyte NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O O
remained NN O O
unaltered NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
in NN O O
line NN O O
with NN O O
recent NN O O
experimental NN O O
studies NN O O
showing NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Type NN O O
II NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
might NN O O
therefore NN O O
become NN O O
first-line NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
Type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3081600)

Double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
doxepin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
to NN O O
doxepin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
a NN O O
7-day NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
washout NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
13 NN O O
weeks NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Antidepressant NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
Ratings NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Zung NN O I-OUT
Self-Rating NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
compounds NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
13-week NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Doxepin NN O I-INT
differed NN O O
from NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
mainly NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
factor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
doxepin NN O I-INT
improving NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
extent NN O O
than NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Doxepin NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
anticholinergic NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
dry NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tiredness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
doxepin NN O I-INT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3534803)

Review NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
Trial NN O O
Committee NN O O
report NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
deep NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
etiology NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative 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
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
factors NN O O
including NN O O
stasis NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
hypercoagulable NN O O
state NN O O
and NN O O
venous NN O O
endothelial NN O O
damage NN O O
. NN O O

Methods NN O O
of NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
are NN O O
directed NN O O
toward NN O O
correcting NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
pathologic NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Methods NN O O
counteracting NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
factors NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
dihydroergotamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DHE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
anticipated NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
stasis NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
hypercoagulable NN O O
state NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
upon NN O O
current NN O O
experimental NN O O
evidence NN O O
and NN O O
current NN O O
theory NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
might NN O O
include NN O O
minimizing NN O O
venous NN O O
endothelial NN O O
injury NN O O
by NN O O
controlling NN O O
venomotor NN O O
tone NN O O
. 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
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
and NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
DHE NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
plus NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
5000 NN O O
U NN O O
, NN O O
DHE NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
plus NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
2500 NN O O
U NN O O
, NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
5000 NN O O
U NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
DHE NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

General NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
thoracic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
operations NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
postop NN O I-PAR
DVT NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Study NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
injected NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
two NN O O
hours NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
for NN O O
5-7 NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
125I-fibrinogen-uptake NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
RFUT NN O O
) NN O O
became NN O O
positive NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
744 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
85 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
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
DHE/Hep NN O I-INT
5000 NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo 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
and NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
active NN O O
agents 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

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
active NN O O
agents NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
benefit 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- (361799)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
report NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
600 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
cooperative NN O O
programme NN O O
to NN O O
carry NN O O
out NN O O
a NN O O
systematic NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
1974-1977 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
author NN O O
's NN O O
transl NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
objectives NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
structure NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
programme NN O O
evolved NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
methodic NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
which NN O O
they NN O O
have NN O O
worked NN O O
out NN O O
and NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
cooperation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
departments NN O O
of NN O O
medicine NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
French NN O I-PAR
anticancer NN O O
centres NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
analyse NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
phases NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
correspond NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
first NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
work NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
give NN O O
the NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
603 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
three NN O O
protocols NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
interrupted NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
which NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
part NN O O
with NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
5-fluoro-uracil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
with NN O O
doxorubicine NN O I-INT
or/and NN O O
with NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
. NN O O

From NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
there NN O O
emerged NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
using NN O O
doxorubicine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
much NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
with NN O O
which NN O O
results NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
clear NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
240 NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
point NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
conditions NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
initiate NN O O
the NN O O
place NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
scheme NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
complex NN O O
therapy NN O O
which NN O O
aims NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O O
at NN O O
palliation NN O O
as NN O O
at NN O O
cure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
point NN O O
out NN O O
how NN O O
important NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
methodical NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
ensure NN O O
its NN O O
development NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
anticancer NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (384815)

Ascaris NN O O
and NN O O
growth NN O O
rates NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty-one NN O I-PAR
Tanzanian NN O I-PAR
preschool 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
levamisole NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
three-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Weights NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heights NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
tri-monthly NN O O
treatment NN O O
visits NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
273 NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
and NN O O
weighed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
one-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
8 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
levamisole NN O I-INT
than NN O O
for NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
controls NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
78 NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
known NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
infected NN O O
with NN O O
Ascaris NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
21 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
levamisole NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving 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

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3919804)

Rapid NN O O
tightening NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
control NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
transient NN O O
deterioration NN O O
of NN O O
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
the NN O O
Oslo NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
during NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
tight NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
control NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
proliferative NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
continuous NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
multiple NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
conventional NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
controls NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Near NN O O
normoglycaemia NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
multiple NN O O
injections NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Blind NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
fluorescein NN O I-OUT
angiograms NN O I-OUT
performed NN O O
three NN O O
monthly NN O O
showed NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
transient NN O O
deterioration NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
multiple NN O O
injection NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Half NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
multiple NN O O
injections NN O O
developed NN O O
retinal NN O O
cotton NN O O
wool NN O O
spots NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
changes NN O O
regressed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
but NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
develop NN O O
cotton NN O I-OUT
wool NN O I-OUT
spots NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
developed NN O O
cotton NN O O
wool NN O O
spots NN O O
are NN O O
characterised NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
decrement NN O O
in NN O O
glycosylated NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypoglycaemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
onset NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
large NN O O
and NN O O
rapid NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
promote NN O O
transient NN O O
deterioration NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4919024)

Protection NN O O
of NN O O
man NN O O
from NN O O
natural NN O O
infection NN O O
with NN O O
influenza NN O O
A2 NN O O
Hong NN O O
Kong NN O O
virus NN O O
by NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
: NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Prophylactic NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
mg. NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
offered NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
influenza NN O O
A2 NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
391 NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
student NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-PAR
A2 NN O I-PAR
Hong NN O I-PAR
Kong NN O I-PAR
epidemic NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Helsinki NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
winter NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1969 NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Serologically NN O I-OUT
verified NN O I-OUT
influenza NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
complement NN O I-OUT
fixation NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
haemagglutination NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
27 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
192 NN O O
students NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
against NN O O
57 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
199 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
giving NN O O
a NN O O
protection NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6418441)

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
cromoglycate NN O I-INT
pressurized NN O O
aerosol NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Sodium NN O I-INT
cromoglycate NN O I-INT
formulated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
pressurized NN O O
aerosol NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
4-times NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
lasting NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Sodium NN O I-INT
cromoglycate 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
improving NN O O
breathlessness NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest 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
breathlessness NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
exertion 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
and NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sleep 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
and NN O O
also NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
value 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

Both NN O O
the NN O O
patients 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
the NN O O
clinicians NN O O
' 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
treatment NN O O
opinions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
preferences 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
favoured NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
cromoglycate NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
usage NN O O
of NN O O
bronchodilators NN O O
( NN O O
theophylline NN O O
and NN O O
aerosol NN O O
beta-stimulants NN O O
combined NN O O
) NN O O
declined NN O O
significantly 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
during NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
cromoglycate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

No NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported 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
show NN O O
that NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
cromoglycate NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
pressurized NN O O
aerosol NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
asthmatic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
concomitant NN O O
bronchodilator NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6421395)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lipoproteins NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
metabolites NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arachidonic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
: NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
middle NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
ischaemic NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
31 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
undertook NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
for NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
controls NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
men NN O O
taking NN O O
regular NN O O
exercise NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
subfraction NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subfraction NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
tendency NN O O
towards NN O O
increased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
6-keto-prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
F1 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
B2 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
regular NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
E2 NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
6-keto-prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
F1 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
HDL2 NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
taking NN O O
regular NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
regular NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
favourably NN O O
influences NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
distribution NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lipoproteins NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arachidonic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6920252)

Experimental NN O O
hyaline NN O O
membrane NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
monkey NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
antenatal NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
. NN O O

A NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
antenatal NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
monkey NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Macaca NN O I-PAR
nemestrina NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hyaline NN O I-PAR
membrane NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HMD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
dams NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/dose NN O O
) NN O O
72 NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
abdominal NN O O
delivery NN O O
at NN O O
135 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
gestation NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
animals NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Infants NN O O
of NN O O
dexamethasone-treated NN O I-INT
dams NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HMD NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
infants NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
animals NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
versus NN O O
92 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

Improvement NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
markedly NN O O
greater 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

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
volume-pressure NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
excised NN O O
lungs NN O O
included NN O O
greater NN O O
distensibility NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
from NN O O
dexamethasone-treated NN O I-INT
dams NN O O
( NN O O
20.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.1 NN O O
ml/g NN O O
dry NN O O
lung NN O O
versus NN O O
14.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.1 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
enhanced NN O O
deflation NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Accelerated NN O O
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
material NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SAM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
phospholipids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
infants NN O O
from NN O O
dexamethasone-treated NN O I-INT
dams NN O O
was NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
phospholipid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
84.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.1 NN O O
mg/g NN O O
dry NN O O
lung NN O O
versus NN O O
75.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.9 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
, NN O O
alveolar NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
phospholipid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.65 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.33 NN O O
mg/g NN O O
dry NN O O
lung NN O O
versus NN O O
3.01 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.84 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
and NN O O
alveolar NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
disaturated NN O I-OUT
phosphatidylcholine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
DPC NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
2.47 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.84 NN O O
mg/g NN O O
dry NN O O
lung NN O O
versus NN O O
1.06 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.05 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

Incorporation NN O O
of NN O O
14C-palmitate NN O I-OUT
into NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
label NN O O
appeared NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DPC NN O O
fraction NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Antenatal NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
experimental NN O I-OUT
HMD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
animal NN O O
model NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
accelerated NN O O
maturation NN O O
of NN O O
fetal NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
, NN O O
synthetic NN O O
metabolism NN O O
of NN O O
SAM NN O O
phospholipid NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6938020)

EORTC NN O O
protocols NN O O
in NN O O
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

An NN O O
interim NN O O
report NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
parallel NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
undertaken NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC NN O O
Urological NN O O
Group NN O O
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
Stilboestrol NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Cyproterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Stilboestrol NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Estracyt NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
short NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
over NN O O
Stilboestrol NN O I-INT
had NN O O
appeared NN O O
so NN O O
far NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
objective NN O O
response NN O O
or NN O O
significant NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
apart NN O O
from NN O O
gynaecomastia NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
third 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
disease NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
longer NN O I-PAR
responsive NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
hormonal NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
Adriamycin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Procarbazine NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
particularly NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
Procarbazine NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
progressed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6951573)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
psychiatric NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
community NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
- NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
relatives NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Macquarie NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
project NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
admitted NN O O
if NN O O
this NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
avoided NN O O
; NN O O
instead NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
back NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
by NN O O
the NN O O
project NN O O
team NN O O
who NN O O
provided NN O O
them NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
relatives NN O O
with NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
, NN O O
assertive NN O O
and NN O O
prolonged NN O O
follow-up NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
backed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
24-hour NN O O
crisis NN O O
service NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
majority NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
project NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
admission NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
month NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Initially NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
burden NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
relatives NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
project NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
by NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
somewhat NN O O
lower NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
four NN O O
months NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
burden NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
relatives NN O O
. NN O O

Relatives NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
project NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
relatives NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
clearly NN O O
feasible NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
most NN O O
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
burden NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
relatives NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6989377)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
esters NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
lipid-lowering NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
niceritrol NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
linoleate NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
clofibrate NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
by NN O O
niceritrol NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
esters NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
during NN O O
lipid-lowering NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
95 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atherosclerotic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O O
was NN O O
prescribed NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
ensuing NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
either NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
or NN O O
niceritrol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
nicotinic NN O O
acid NN O O
ester NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
added NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
added NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
niceritrol NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
esters NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
samples NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
trial NN O O
period NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
adherence NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
dietary NN O O
treatment NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
content NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
saturated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
monounsaturated NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
secreased NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increasing NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
pulyunsaturated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
saturated NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P/S NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
esters NN O O
and NN O O
triglycerides NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
minor NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
phospholipids NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
were NN O O
partly NN O O
reversed NN O O
by NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
while NN O O
niceritrol NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
any NN O O
major NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Clofibrate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
coincided NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
monounsaturated NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
oleate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
esters NN O O
, NN O O
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
phospholipids NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
content NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
linoleic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
18 NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
esters NN O O
and NN O O
triglycerides NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
18 NN O O
: NN O O
2/18 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O O
esters NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
P/S NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
, NN O O
partly NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
saturated NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
during NN O O
clofibrate NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
clofibrate NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O O
enriched NN O O
with NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O O
fats NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
monounsaturated NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
esters NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
effect NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
polyunsaturated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
saturated NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
clofibrate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
counteracted NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O O
fat NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7017018)

Bacteremia NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
Bacteroides NN O O
fragilis NN O O
after NN O O
elective NN O I-PAR
appendectomy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Bacteremia NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
Bacteroides NN O O
fragilis NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
75 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
B. NN O O
fragilis NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
bacteremia NN O O
. NN O O

Bacteroides NN O O
bacteremia NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
elective NN O O
appendectomy NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
transplantation 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
with NN O O
profound NN O O
lymphocytopenia 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
patient NN O O
received NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
or NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
positive NN O O
blood NN O O
culture NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
B. NN O O
fragilis NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
single NN O O
organism NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
blood NN O O
and NN O O
abscesses NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
in NN O O
containment NN O O
of NN O O
B. NN O O
fragilis NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
previously NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
unexplained NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bacteroides NN O I-OUT
bacteremia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
immunocompromised NN O O
patients NN O O
has NN O O
occasionally NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Lymphocytes NN O O
themselves NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
host-bacterium NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
lymphocytopenia NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
generalized NN O O
deficiency NN O O
in NN O O
host NN O O
defenses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7598243)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
, NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
after NN O O
major NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
, NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
360 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I-III NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TAH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
i.v. NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
1.25 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
perphenazine NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Hypotension NN O I-OUT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
developed NN O O
profound NN O O
systolic NN O O
hypotension NN O O
at NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-two NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
droperidol NN O O
became NN O O
sedated NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
developing NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retching NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
emetic NN O I-OUT
sequelae NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SES NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
deemed NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
failed NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
rescue NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

ondansetron NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
droperidol NN O O
( NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
perphenazine NN O O
( NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
SES NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
43 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

Metoclopramide NN O O
was NN O O
ineffective NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
, NN O O
droperidol NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
perphenazine NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
providing NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

perphenazine NN O O
was NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
perphenazine NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
after NN O O
TAH NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7707420)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
individualized NN O I-INT
breast NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
exaggerated NN O O
perceptions NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
experience NN O O
excessive NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
communicate NN O O
more NN O O
accurate NN O O
risk NN O O
information NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
specialized NN O O
programs NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
counseling NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
initiated NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
centers NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O O
States NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
1 NN O O
) 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
standardized NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
individualized NN O I-INT
breast NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
on NN O O
comprehension NN O O
of NN O O
personal NN O O
risk NN O O
among NN O O
first-degree NN O I-PAR
relatives NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
women NN O O
most NN O O
and NN O O
least NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
such NN O O
counseling 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
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
individualized NN O I-INT
breast NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
to NN O O
general NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first-degree NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
personal NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Risk NN O I-OUT
comprehension NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
concordance NN O O
between NN O O
perceived NN O O
subjective NN O O
lifetime NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
estimated NN O O
objective NN O O
lifetime NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
risk NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
their NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
comprehension NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition 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
3.5 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
1.3-9.5 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
about NN O O
two NN O O
thirds NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
overestimate NN O O
their NN O O
lifetime NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
substantially NN O O
following NN O O
counseling NN O O
. NN O O

Examination NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
interaction NN O O
effects NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
risk NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
produce NN O O
improved NN O O
comprehension NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
anxious NN O O
preoccupation NN O O
with NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
at NN O O
base NN O O
line NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
white NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
than NN O O
African-American NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
0.34 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.11-0.99 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
Efforts NN O O
to NN O O
counsel NN O O
women NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
risks NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
unless NN O O
their NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
anxieties NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
addressed NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Attention NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
psychological NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
critical NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
risk-counseling NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
that NN O O
incorporate NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
recently NN O O
cloned NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
gene NN O O
, NN O O
BRCA1 NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
BRCA2 NN O O
when NN O O
that NN O O
gene NN O O
has NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
cloned NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7808649)

[ NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
tromethamine NN O I-INT
suppositories NN O O
in NN O O
post-cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
] 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 O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
tromethamine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
suppositories NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
after NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
post-operative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Anaesthesia NN O O
Service NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
99 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Cholecystectomy 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
analgesia NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
tromethamine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
suppositories NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
after NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
administration NN O O
by NN O O
assessing 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
using NN O O
a NN O O
4 NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VRS NN O I-OUT
) 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
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
overall NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
physician NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
active NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
30 NN O O
' NN O O
and NN O O
until NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
of 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
0.01 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
respectively NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
' NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
suppositories NN O O
required NN O O
another NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
withdrew NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
complained NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
two NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
on NN O O
ketorolac NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
good NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
suppositories NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
pain NN O O
control NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
shortest NN O O
time NN O O
interval NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
or NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7814711)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
oxytetracycline NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
dry NN O O
cow NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
aureus NN O O
mastitis NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
oxytetracycline NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
supplemental NN O O
dry NN O O
cow NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
aureus NN O O
mastitis NN O O
, NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
Holstein NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
intracisternal NN O O
infusion NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
commercial NN O O
preparation NN O O
of NN O O
cephapirin NN O I-INT
benzathine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
drying NN O O
off NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
cows NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
infusion NN O O
with NN O O
cephapirin NN O I-INT
benzathine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
drying NN O O
off NN O O
and NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
oxytetracycline NN O I-INT
at NN O O
11 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
d NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
after NN O O
drying NN O O
off NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
cows NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Milk NN O O
samples NN O O
collected NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
d NN O O
after NN O O
calving NN O O
were NN O O
plated NN O O
for NN O O
bacterial NN O O
isolation NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
collection NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
to NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
storage NN O O
at NN O O
-20 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
Quarters NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
infected NN O O
if NN O O
S. NN O O
aureus NN O O
was NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
fresh NN O O
and NN O O
frozen NN O O
cultures NN O O
from NN O O
any NN O O
one NN O O
sample NN O O
collected NN O O
before NN O O
drying NN O O
off NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
infected NN O O
quarter NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
cured NN O O
if NN O O
S. NN O O
aureus NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
fresh NN O O
or NN O O
frozen NN O O
culture NN O O
from NN O O
milk NN O O
samples NN O O
obtained NN O O
following NN O O
calving NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
30 NN O O
d NN O O
after NN O O
calving NN O O
for NN O O
systemic NN O O
oxytetracycline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
cephapirin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
infected NN O O
quarters NN O O
and NN O O
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
infected NN O O
cows NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
27.5 NN O O
and NN O O
25.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cephapirin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
culture NN O O
at NN O O
60 NN O O
d NN O O
after NN O O
calving NN O O
were NN O O
21.2 NN O O
and NN O O
22.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
cephapirin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Systemic NN O O
oxytetracycline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
intramammary NN O O
dry NN O O
cow NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
S. NN O O
aureus NN O O
mastitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7827398)

Epidemiology NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

Importance NN O O
of NN O O
preventive NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
associated NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O

Stroke NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
and NN O O
disability NN O O
in NN O O
developed NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
increases NN O O
exponentially NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
, NN O O
traditionally NN O O
, NN O O
many NN O O
medical NN O O
practitioners NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reluctant NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
hypertension NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Since NN O O
1991 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
major NN O O
trials NN O O
-- 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
MRC NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
Swedish NN O O
Trial NN O O
in NN O O
Old NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
STOP-Hypertension NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Systolic NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Elderly NN O O
Program NN O O
( NN O O
SHEP NN O O
) NN O O
-- NN O O
have NN O O
conclusively NN O O
established NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

International NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
-- NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
Fifth NN O O
Report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Joint NN O O
National NN O O
Committee NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
1993 NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
World NN O O
Health NN O O
Organization NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O O
Society NN O O
of NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
British NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
Society NN O O
Working NN O O
Party NN O O
-- NN O O
have NN O O
all NN O O
been NN O O
modified NN O O
to NN O O
reflect NN O O
the NN O O
emerging NN O O
evidence NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
older NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
similarly NN O O
in NN O O
accord NN O O
with NN O O
giving NN O O
high NN O O
priority NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7831628)

Measurement NN O O
of NN O O
transfer NN O O
factor NN O O
during NN O O
constant NN O O
exhalation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Transfer NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
monoxide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TLCO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
method NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
carbon NN O O
monoxide NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
inert NN O O
gas NN O O
( NN O O
methane NN O O
) NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
lung NN O O
volume NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
exhalation NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
this NN O O
new NN O O
technique NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
solely NN O O
upon NN O O
exhalation NN O O
, NN O O
anomalies NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inspiration NN O O
and NN O O
breath NN O O
holding NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
prolonged NN O O
breath NN O O
holding NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
required NN O O
, NN O O
measurements NN O O
can NN O O
readily NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
in NN O O
dyspnoeic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Exhalation NN O I-OUT
TLCO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TLCO NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ex NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Jones NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Meade NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
breath NN O I-OUT
holding NN O I-OUT
TLCO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TLCO NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bh NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
practise NN O O
the NN O O
exhalation NN O O
manoeuvre NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
comparative NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
very NN O O
close NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
bias NN O O
) NN O O
+/- NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
( NN O O
precision NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
0.05 NN O O
( NN O O
0.84 NN O O
) NN O O
mmol/min/kPa NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
equally NN O O
strong NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
; NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
< NN O O
1.51 NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
0.21 NN O O
( NN O O
0.80 NN O O
) NN O O
mmol/min/kPa NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Since NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
essentially NN O O
identical NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
techniques NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
seems NN O O
that NN O O
comparable NN O O
pathophysiological NN O O
factors NN O O
affect NN O O
TLCO NN O O
during NN O O
breath NN O O
holding NN O O
and NN O O
constant NN O O
exhalation NN O O
. NN O O

Constant NN O O
exhalation NN O O
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
breath NN O O
holding NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
TLCO NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7844976)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
teacher NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
Smart NN O O
Choices NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
tobacco NN O O
prevention NN O O
curriculum NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
four-year NN O O
research NN O O
project NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
strategies NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
diffusion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Smart NN O I-OUT
Choices NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
school-based NN O O
tobacco NN O O
prevention NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
curriculum NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
teacher NN O I-PAR
training NN O O
are NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

School NN O O
districts NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
live NN O I-INT
workshop NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
or NN O O
video NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
teachers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Smart NN O I-OUT
Choices NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Results NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
video-trained NN O I-INT
teachers NN O O
implemented NN O O
the NN O O
curriculum NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
overall NN O O
completeness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
those NN O O
teachers NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
did NN O O
teach NN O O
the NN O O
curriculum NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Video-trained NN O I-INT
teachers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
brainstorming NN O O
and NN O O
student NN O O
presentations/role NN O O
plays NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O O
prescribed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
curriculum NN O O
. NN O O

Implications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
teacher NN O I-PAR
training NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7853069)

Necessary NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
sufficient NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
feedback NN O O
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
consider NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
patient NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
screener NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
elevated NN O O
anxiety NN O O
levels NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
undetected NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
a NN O O
physician NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
inform NN O O
physicians NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Participating NN O O
physicians NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
demonstration NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
arm NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
randomization NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
physicians NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
five-month NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O O
mixed-model NN O O
health NN O O
maintenance NN O O
organization NN O O
serving NN O O
approximately NN O O
110,000 NN O O
enrollees NN O O
in NN O O
central NN O O
Colorado NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS NN O O
573 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
unrecognized NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
approximately NN O I-PAR
8,000 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
waiting NN O I-PAR
room NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
questionnaire NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
A NN O O
physician NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
served NN O O
the NN O O
dual NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
providing NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O O
demonstration NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
setting NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
providing NN O O
a NN O O
reporting NN O O
system NN O O
for NN O O
summarizing NN O O
the NN O O
anxiety NN O O
symptom NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
functioning NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Patient NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
as NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
reporting NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
functioning NN O O
status NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
physicians NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
change NN O O
patient NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
outcomes NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
closely NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
distress NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8519720)

Double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
intercostal NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
to NN O O
subarachnoid NN O O
administered NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
post-thoracotomy NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Thoracotomy NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
compromised NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Intercostal NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
INB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
subarachnoid NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
act NN O O
on NN O O
different NN O O
portions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
post-thoracotomy NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
modalities NN O O
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
post-thoracotomy NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improving NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
thoracotomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
SM NN O I-INT
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
INB NN O I-INT
with NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
INB+ NN O O
) NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
wound NN O O
closure NN O O
or NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
SM NN O I-INT
with NN O O
INB NN O I-INT
using NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
INB- NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

Visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
rest NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ipsilateral NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
, 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
, NN O O
and NN O O
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 O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

Opioid NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
initial 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

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
INB+ NN O I-INT
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
better NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
56.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
40.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
FVC NN O I-OUT
values NN O O
( NN O O
54.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
39.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
resting NN O O
and NN O O
cough NN O O
pain NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
continued NN O O
to NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
INB+ NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
INB- NN O I-INT
group NN O O
although NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
beyond NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Opioid NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
INB- NN O I-INT
, NN O O
16.7 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs. NN O O
INB+ NN O I-INT
, NN O O
13.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
postoperative NN O O
INB NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
modest NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
function NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
to NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
SM NN O I-INT
for NN O O
post-thoracotomy NN O O
analgesia NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
were NN O O
transient NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
recommend NN O O
adding NN O O
INB NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
lateral NN O O
thoracotomy NN O O
who NN O O
receive NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
SM NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8726604)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
on NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
investigational NN O O
inhalational NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
in NN O O
47 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
or NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
in NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
nitrous NN O O
oxide-oxygen NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
3-6 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
0-200 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
. NN O O

Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
emergence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
emergence 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
discharge NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
were NN O O
9.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
, NN O O
120.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.0 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
244 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
were NN O O
11.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.4 NN O O
, NN O O
106.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
282 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
deeper NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
minimum NN O O
alveolar NN O O
concentration NN O O
1.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
oriented NN O O
earlier NN O O
( NN O O
13.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
min NN O O
vs NN O O
17.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
min NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
little NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8771302)

Fluoroscopic NN O O
functional NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
bileaflet NN O I-INT
prostheses NN O I-INT
: NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
valve NN O O
orientation NN O O
. NN O O

Fluoroscopy NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
, NN O O
easy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
readily NN O O
available NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
prosthesis NN O O
functioning NN O O
after NN O O
heart NN O O
valve NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
different NN O O
orientation NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
prosthesis NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
limitation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
accounting NN O O
for NN O O
unsatisfactory NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases 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
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
what NN O O
extent NN O O
different NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
valve NN O O
orientation NN O O
influence NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
fluoroscopic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
bileaflet NN O I-INT
prostheses NN O I-INT
. NN O O

We NN O O
prospectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mitral NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
tricuspid NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Sorin NN O I-INT
Bicarbon NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
CarboMedics NN O I-INT
bileaflet NN O I-INT
prostheses NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Fifty NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
prostheses NN O I-INT
oriented NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
perpendicular NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
position NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ventricular NN O O
septum NN O O
. NN O O

Fluoroscopic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
appropriate NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
prosthesis NN O O
' NN O O
tilting NN O O
disk NN O O
projection NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
valve NN O O
's NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
through NN O O
Doppler NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
proper NN O O
fluoroscopic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
rapidly NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
orientation NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
impossible NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
it NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
orientation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
patients NN O O
extremely NN O O
angulated NN O O
, NN O O
uneasy NN O O
projection NN O O
was NN O O
often NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
get NN O O
a NN O O
correct NN O O
fluoroscopic NN O O
image NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Doppler NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
similarly NN O O
favorable NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
valve NN O O
orientation NN O O
. NN O O

Prosthesis NN O I-INT
orientation NN O O
crucially NN O O
affects NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fluoroscopic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
orientation NN O O
perpendicular NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ventricular NN O O
septum NN O O
greatly NN O O
facilitates NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fluoroscopy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
detrimental NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
valve NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

This NN O O
valve NN O O
orientation NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
fluoroscopic NN O I-OUT
window NN O O
whenever NN O O
a NN O O
valve NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
is NN O O
suspected NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8779382)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
tunnelling NN O I-INT
on NN O O
epidural NN O O
catheter NN O O
migration 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
of NN O O
82 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
tunnelling NN O I-INT
of NN O O
an NN O O
epidural NN O O
catheter NN O O
influences NN O O
its NN O O
migration NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Tunnelling NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
catheter NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
distance NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
cm NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inward NN O I-OUT
migration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1 NN O O
cm NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
fixation NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
transparent NN O O
adhesive NN O O
dressing NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
marked NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
catheter NN O O
was NN O O
sited NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
thoracic NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
lumbar NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O O
two NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
tunnelled NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
remained NN O O
within NN O O
0.5 NN O O
cm NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
original NN O O
position NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
non-tunnelled NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
, NN O O
although NN O O
this 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

Outward NN O O
catheter NN O I-OUT
migration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
tunnelling NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8911222)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
tryptophan NN O O
depletion NN O O
in NN O O
drug-free NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
primary 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
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
behavioral NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O O
tryptophan NN O O
depletion NN O O
in NN O O
drug-free NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
drug-free NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) 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
30.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
8.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
short-term NN O O
tryptophan NN O I-INT
depletion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
24-hour NN O O
, NN O O
low-tryptophan NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
morning NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
drink NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Behavioral NN O O
ratings NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
drink NN O I-INT
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
180 NN O O
, NN O O
300 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
420 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
drink NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
tryptophan NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
drink NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
active NN O O
and NN O O
sham NN O O
testing NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eleven NN O O
( NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
both NN O O
test NN O O
days NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
global NN O O
worsening NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
with NN O O
short-term NN O O
tryptophan NN O O
depletion NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
after NN O O
sham NN O O
depletion NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tryptophan NN O O
depletion NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
behaviors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
whirling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
flapping NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
banging NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hitting NN O I-OUT
self NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rocking NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toe NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
calm NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
happy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
anxious NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
relatedness NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
thoughts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
tryptophan NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
tryptophan-deficient NN O O
amino NN O O
acid NN O O
drink NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
global NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
baseline NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
tryptophan NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O O
after NN O O
tryptophan NN O O
depletion 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
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
research NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
implicated NN O O
a NN O O
dysregulation NN O O
in NN O O
serotonin NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
serotonin NN O O
precursor NN O O
availability NN O O
may NN O O
exacerbate NN O O
some NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
characteristic NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Continued NN O O
investigation NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
serotonin NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8911223)

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
fluvoxamine 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
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
fundamental NN O O
disturbance NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
communication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
markedly NN O O
restricted NN O O
repertoire NN O O
of NN O O
activities NN O O
and NN O O
interests NN O O
. NN O O

Abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serotonin NN O O
neurotransmitter NN O O
system NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
persons NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
consistently NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
drugs NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
adults 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
12-week 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
the NN O O
potent NN O O
and NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O O
uptake NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Behavioral NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after 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
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eight NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluvoxamine-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
categorized NN O O
as NN O O
responders NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
15 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
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fluvoxamine 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
thoughts NN O I-OUT
and 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
maladaptive 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
and NN O O
aggression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
some NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
relatedness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O O
behavior NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
full-scale NN O O
IQ NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
than NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
dyskinesias NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Fluvoxamine 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
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

Controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
other NN O O
potent NN O O
and NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O O
uptake NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
seem NN O O
warranted NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
adolescents NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8913901)

Methodology NN O O
of NN O O
serial NN O O
ECG NN O O
classification NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
adaptation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NOVACODE NN O O
for NN O O
Q NN O O
wave NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
in NN O O
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
. NN O O

Serial NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
( NN O O
ECG NN O O
) NN O O
changes NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
critical NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
algorithm NN O O
for NN O O
classification NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischemic NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
large-scale NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
describes NN O O
a NN O O
computerized NN O O
serial NN O O
ECG NN O O
classification NN O O
program NN O O
developed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
St. NN O O
Louis NN O O
University NN O O
Core NN O O
ECG NN O O
Laboratory NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
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
trial NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multivessel NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery 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
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
or 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 O

The NN O O
St. NN O O
Louis NN O O
University NN O O
program NN O O
detects NN O O
and NN O O
codes NN O O
serial NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Q NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
Minnesota NN O O
code NN O O
( NN O O
MC NN O O
) NN O O
criteria NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
NOVACODE NN O O
hierarchical NN O O
classification NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
seven-power NN O O
calibrated NN O O
coding NN O O
loupe NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
generate NN O O
the NN O O
MC NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
customized NN O O
software NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
minor NN O O
or NN O O
major NN O O
changes NN O O
are NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
serial NN O O
comparison NN O O
program NN O O
and NN O O
referred NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
physician NN O O
coder NN O O
for NN O O
verification NN O O
. NN O O

Serial NN O O
comparison NN O O
coding NN O O
rules NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
adjust NN O O
for NN O O
weaknesses NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
MC NN O O
classification NN O O
system NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
instability NN O O
at NN O O
decision NN O O
boundaries NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
4,244 NN O I-PAR
BARI NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
registry NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
ECGs NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Core NN O I-PAR
ECG NN O I-PAR
Laboratory NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
MC NN O O
Q NN O O
wave NN O O
progression NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
568 NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
13.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
MC NN O O
criteria NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
367 NN O O
( NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
St. NN O O
Louis NN O O
University NN O O
coding NN O O
rules NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O O
1 NN O O
MC NN O O
Q NN O O
wave NN O O
progressions NN O O
was NN O O
16.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
697/4,244 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
259/4,244 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
St. NN O O
Louis NN O O
University NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
. NN O O

Intraobserver NN O O
variability NN O O
for NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
Q NN O O
wave NN O O
progression NN O O
codes NN O O
determined NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
812 NN O O
serial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8916620)

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
prevention NN O O
program NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
with NN O O
clustered NN O O
data NN O O
using NN O O
generalized NN O O
estimating NN O O
equations NN O O
. NN O O

Experimental NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
prevention NN O O
programs NN O O
often NN O O
randomize NN O O
clusters NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
individuals NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
among NN O O
individuals NN O O
within NN O O
clusters NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
in NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
errors NN O O
are NN O O
biased NN O O
, NN O O
potentially NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
misleading NN O O
conclusions NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
the NN O O
generalized NN O I-INT
estimating NN O I-INT
equations NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GEE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
method NN O O
, NN O O
focusing NN O O
specifically NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
GEE-independent NN O I-INT
method NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
within-cluster NN O O
correlation NN O O
in NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
continuous NN O O
or NN O O
binary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
GEE-independent NN O I-INT
method NN O O
yields NN O O
consistent NN O O
and NN O O
robust NN O O
variance NN O O
estimates NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
project NN O O
DARE NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
substance NN O O
abuse NN O O
prevention NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
illustration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8989009)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia-induced NN O O
hypotension NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
preanesthetic NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
crystalloids NN O I-INT
, NN O O
colloids NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O I-INT
prehydration NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
practice NN O O
of NN O O
routinely NN O O
prehydrating NN O O
patients NN O O
by NN O O
infusing NN O O
a NN O O
crystalloid NN O I-INT
or NN O O
colloid NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1.0 NN O O
L/70 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia-induced NN O O
hypotension NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
challenged NN O O
recently NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
several NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vasopressor NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O I-INT
prehydration NN O I-INT
with NN O O
crystalloid NN O I-INT
and NN O O
colloid NN O I-INT
prehydration NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Eighty-five NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
60-89 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
500 NN O O
mL NN O O
crystalloid NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Hartmanns NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
29 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
500 NN O O
mL NN O O
colloid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Haemaccel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
prehydration NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Hypotension NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
systolic NN O O
< NN O O
90 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ephedrine NN O O
3-mg NN O O
boluses NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
colloid NN O I-INT
group NN O O
between NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
30 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
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly 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
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ephedrine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea/vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ephedrine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
withholding NN O O
prehydration NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
greater NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
vasopressor NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
crystalloid NN O I-INT
or NN O O
colloid NN O I-INT
prehydration NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9229602)

[ NN O O
Antazoline/tetryzoline NN O I-INT
eyedrops NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
levocabastine NN O I-INT
eyedrops NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
] NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
allergic NN O O
diseases NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
eye NN O O
segment NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
investigation NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
antiallergic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
local NN O O
tolerance NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
Antazolin/Tetryzolin NN O I-INT
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
and NN O O
Levocabastine NN O I-INT
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
. NN O O

69 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
documented NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
reduced NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
effective NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0395 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
faster NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Antazolin/Tetryzolin NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
drop NN O O
of NN O O
trial NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
fast NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
Antazolin/Tetryzolin NN O I-INT
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
was NN O O
clearly NN O O
outweigh NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9394106)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
paromomycin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endotoxemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
-- NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
experimental NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
gut-derived NN O O
endotoxins NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
relevance NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
alcoholic NN O O
liver 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
study NN O O
was 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
nonabsorbable NN O O
, NN O O
broad-spectrum NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
on NN O O
endotoxemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis 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
paromomycin NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
x NN O O
1 NN O O
g/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
possible NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Endotoxin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
laboratory NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
weekly NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Endotoxin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
paromomycin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
biological NN O O
items NN O O
collected NN O O
initially NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
initial NN O O
endotoxin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
; NN O O
paromomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
16.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.3 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
17.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.9 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
; NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
2.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
endotoxin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
verum NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
paromomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
8.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.9 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
14.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.5 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
paromomycin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
endotoxin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
4-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
paromomycin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
endotoxemia NN O O
in NN O O
cirrhotics NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
earlier NN O O
studies NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
reproduced NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9481998)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
phonophoresis NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
temporomandibular NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
pain-relieving NN O I-OUT
effect NN O O
of NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
phonophoresis NN O I-INT
on NN O O
temporomandibular NN O O
( NN O O
TMJ NN O O
) NN O O
joint NN O O
pain NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated 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
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
TMJ NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
and 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 O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 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
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
massage NN O O
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
MHz NN O O
, NN O O
0.8 NN O O
to NN O O
1.5 NN O O
W/cm2 NN O O
continuous NN O O
output NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
painful NN O O
temporomandibular NN O O
joint NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
conducting NN O O
medium NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
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
and NN O O
pressure NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
data NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
post-treatment NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O I-OUT
PPT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, 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

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
indomethacin NN O I-INT
phonophoresis NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
significant NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relieving NN O O
effect NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
TMJ NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9573502)

Systemic NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neurohormonal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
steady-state NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-INT
brain NN O I-INT
natriuretic NN O I-INT
peptide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hemodynamically NN O I-PAR
decompensated NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Human NN O I-INT
brain NN O I-INT
natriuretic NN O I-INT
peptide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
hBNP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
decompensated NN O O
cardiac NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neurohormonal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
incompletely NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
4-hour NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
decompensated NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O O
invasive 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
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
during NN O O
three NN O O
4-hour NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
: NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
] NN O O
versus NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
0.025 NN O O
or NN O O
0.05 NN O O
microgram/kg/min NN O O
[ NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Urinary NN O O
volume NN O O
losses NN O O
were NN O O
replaced NN O O
hourly NN O O
to NN O O
separate NN O O
the NN O O
vasodilatory NN O O
and NN O O
diuretic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

hBNP NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
reduced NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
capillary NN O I-OUT
wedge NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

hBNP NN O I-INT
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
lowered NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
1722 NN O O
+/- NN O O
139 NN O O
to NN O O
1101 NN O O
+/- NN O O
83 NN O O
dynes.s.cm-5 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
unloading NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
a NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Renal NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
predominant NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
were NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
preload NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

2 NN O O
) NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
also NN O O
improved NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

3 NN O O
) NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
) NN O O
hBNP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
pharmacologically NN O O
active NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
decompensated NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9695300)

Salbutamol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
mist NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
bronchiolitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
bronchodilators NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bronchiolitis NN O O
remains NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
nebulized NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty-six NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
wheezing NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bronchiolitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
nebulized NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
52 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0.15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
mL NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
; NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
nebulized NN O O
to NN O O
52 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
iii NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
52 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
mist NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
tent NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
oxygen NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
agent NN O O
after NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
respiratory NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
5 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
. NN O O

Respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cyanosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wheezing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retractions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
0.82 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.4 NN O O
and NN O O
1.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
decrease NN O O
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
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
without NN O O
reaching NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Salbutamol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
bronchiolitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9730996)

Inhaled NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
bronchiectasis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Although NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
therapy NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
bronchiectasis NN O O
, NN O O
very NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infective NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
bronchiectasis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
therefore NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
4-wk NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
bronchiectasis NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
receiving NN O O
either NN O O
inhaled NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
microgram NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
Accuhaler NN O O
device NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

At NN O O
each NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
spirometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
densities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interleukin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-1beta NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 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
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
leukotriene NN O I-OUT
B4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LTB4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. 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
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
IL-1beta NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
LTB4 NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
three NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
exacerbation 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
spirometry NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
any NN O O
reported NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group 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
show NN O O
that NN O O
high-dose NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
bronchiectasis NN O O
. NN O O

Large-scale NN O O
and NN O O
long-term 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
effects NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
steroid NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
components NN O O
in NN O O
bronchiectasis NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9816035)

Amonafide NN O I-INT
: NN O O
An NN O O
active NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
-- NN O O
a NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
leukemia NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
CALGB NN O O
8642 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Amonafide NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
imide NN O O
derivative NN O O
of NN O O
naphthalic NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
had NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
preclinical NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
is NN O O
extensively NN O O
metabolized NN O O
and NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
toxicity NN O O
has NN O O
previously NN O O
been NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
metabolite NN O O
, NN O O
N-acetyl-amonafide NN O O
. NN O O

Amonafide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
chosen NN O O
for NN O O
inclusion NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Cancer NN O O
and NN O O
Leukemia NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
CALGB NN O O
) NN O O
master NN O O
metastatic NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

CALGB NN O O
8642 NN O O
randomizes NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
either NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
agents NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
standard NN O O
cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
immediate NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
CALGB NN O O
8642 NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
limited NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
agents NN O O
precedes NN O O
standard NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
report NN O O
deals NN O O
only NN O O
with NN O O
amonafide NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

Comparisons NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
will NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
addressed NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
measurable NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0-1 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prior NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
permitted NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
visceral NN O I-PAR
crisis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Amonafide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/m2/day NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
repeated NN O O
at NN O O
21-day NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

Escalation NN O O
and NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
mandated NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
hematotoxicity NN O O
or NN O O
lack NN O O
thereof NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
primarily NN O O
hematological NN O O
and NN O O
bimodal NN O O
: NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
one NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
hematological NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
35.7 NN O O
% NN O O
response NN O O
if NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
( NN O O
versus NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
response NN O O
if NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
( NN O O
versus NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
amonafide NN O I-INT
is NN O O
somewhat NN O O
active NN O O
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

There NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
steep NN O O
dose-response NN O O
curve NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
myelosuppression NN O O
and NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
adequately NN O O
dosed NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
hematotoxicity NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
amonafide NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
35 NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
will NN O O
incorporate NN O O
individualized NN O O
dosing NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
acetylator NN O O
phenotyping NN O O
. NN O O



